• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spare the rod, spoil the child?????????????

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
I have seen it all. I saw when they were for capital punishment, then against capital punishment... then for capital punishment, then against capital punishment.
I saw when they were for and against child discipline, in the same seasaw manner.
I've seen it all.
I know why mankind will always have these issues, and why the so called empirical evidence will backfire repeatedly... as we see... repeatedly.
So, again. Those with eyes to see, will see.
We live in a world where the blind leads the blind. The pit is just ahead.
You only see what you want to see, because that's what you're left with when you reject empirical evidence as a requirement for grounding your beliefs in reality.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Should I say Ditto.
It wouldn't make sense. In the very post I replied to, you said that "the so called empirical evidence will backfire repeatedly." I have not made any such rejection of empirical evidence in this discussion; only you have.

At best, it would make you a hypocrite.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It wouldn't make sense. In the very post I replied to, you said that "the so called empirical evidence will backfire repeatedly." I have not made any such rejection of empirical evidence in this discussion; only you have.

At best, it would make you a hypocrite.
Yeah. it would, actually.
It would go like this...You only see what you want to see, because that's what you're left with when you reject truth as a requirement for grounding your beliefs in reality... for so called empirical evidence. ...addition. ;)
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Yeah. it would, actually.
It would go like this...You only see what you want to see, because that's what you're left with when you reject truth as a requirement for grounding your beliefs in reality... for so called empirical evidence. ...addition. ;)
Still doesn't make sense. I'm basing my understanding on what the empirical evidence demonstrates and I change my beliefs in accordance with new evidence. I can't just believe what I want because there can only ever be one valid conclusion that follows from a set of evidence.

That's why empirical evidence is a constraint on belief.

If you actually care about truth, then I have to inform you that your belief in "the pit" is necessarily not true under modal logic. It contradicts nomological laws and is therefore impossible. So you would still be a hypocrite here, too.

Do you even care? Do you have any interest in figuring out if what you believe holds up to rational scrutiny or what the actual truth of the matter might be if it contradicts what you already believe?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Still doesn't make sense. I'm basing my understanding on what the empirical evidence demonstrates and I change my beliefs in accordance with new evidence. I can't just believe what I want because there can only ever be one valid conclusion that follows from a set of evidence.

That's why empirical evidence is a constraint on belief.
Why call it empirical, if it really isn't.

If you actually care about truth, then I have to inform you that your belief in "the pit" is necessarily not true under modal logic. It contradicts nomological laws and is therefore impossible. So you would still be a hypocrite here, too.
I hope you are not calling me a hypocrite, because there is a basis for truth which I accept, and your opinion does not make it void, because of what you believe.
So that don't make me a hypocrite... but it would make you self-righteous and arrogant.

Do you even care? Do you have any interest in figuring out if what you believe holds up to rational scrutiny or what the actual truth of the matter might be if it contradicts what you already believe?
I care very much about truth. That is why I take the time and examine the facts on both sides.
I don't reject one side because I am closed-minded to any of it being true.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
In my experience, all children do not benefit by physical punishment, at home or in school. One size does not fit all. However, there are some children who can benefit by controlled physical stimulus, if done in a rationally consistent manner. You set the rules and define the consequences so everyone knows reliable cause and affect.

For example, say you have a child with a very small attention span. They tends to act out and/or react on impulse. Since that child is changing their focus, often and fast, you will need a fast discipline procedure, that can be implemented to act within the small time frame of their focus. The quick slap; shock, is time proven way to help. A quick slap can be accomplished in a split second, while the child are in focus; allowing them to associate real time cause and affect. The time out approach can become too long, if their focus is going in and out. They may internally try to figure out, which focal point, out of many, is the problem?

The extra benefit of quick and direct assignment of focal cause and affect, is it does not waste all the teacher's time on a few problem children, due to techniques that often miss fast moving targets. This does an injustice to the rest of the students, who now lose their allotted instruction time. This change of discipline approach could explain lowering test scores. All children are important, and if the brats get all the attention, the lesson to the rest of the students, is to become more like brat, so you can get special treatment. One may end up with a classroom of chaos. This result is a form of psychological child abuse.

One observation, from political discussions with the Left Wing of culture, is this side of the political spectrum has more special needs; need fads, that they think overrides everyone else, with a Big Brother urgency. The drugs and the time out, did not do a good job, other than create a superficial bandaid. The impulsive behavior is now part of the adults. Your experts are fools.

On the other hand, if you have children who have self control, who can see cause and affect and focus for hours on their hobbies and projects, they do not need split second slap reinforcement. The slap can be very counter productive since it actually destroys their long term concentration and focus, with an anticipated fear, that may not even have a casual pattern. This is the down side of the slap. You need to tailor to both student types.

Micro managing children who have good focus, for example, can be detrimental to these healthy children. Now the adult, with the attention disorder, is leading the child who does not have it. That teacher may need the slap, since they can't help narrowing their focus onto minutia, away from the longer term picture needed for research. This type of teacher will have a harder time implementing a longer term approach of tailored slap discipline, in a rational way. That type of teacher may have missed slap therapy, as a child, and becomes abusive as an adult, thereby giving slaps a bad name. They may slap on impulse; bad day, all without logical reason.
I sincerely hope that you aren't in any sort of position with responsibility over children.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Why call it empirical, if it really isn't.
I'm not sure what you think that word means if you think it isn't.
I hope you are not calling me a hypocrite, because there is a basis for truth which I accept, and your opinion does not make it void, because of what you believe.
So that don't make me a hypocrite... but it would make you self-righteous and arrogant.
I think arrogance is when you claim to have seen everything to the point that you can ignore the evidence in order to assert whatever you want. Epistemic humility is when we constrain our beliefs in proportion to the evidence we have available.
I care very much about truth. That is why I take the time and examine the facts on both sides.
I don't reject one side because I am closed-minded to any of it being true.
You say you care about the truth, but then you say you don't reject one side out of a closed-mindedness towards it being true.

However, if you actually cared about the truth, you would be closed towards believing that which is necessarily false or that which has yet to be evidenced, at least until the point that it has sufficiently demonstrated its verisimilitude. If you are going to care about truth, then you're going to have to recant your belief in falsehoods or provide sufficient evidence that they are true.

Vaguely hyping yourself up as omniscient and getting into a petty insult war with me when I call you out on it is not the behavior of any rational truth-seeker. It's cringe.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, in my joke example, the fact that he grew up to become an abusive Catholic parent was a sign that he didn't turn out fine. I'm not the best at getting my point across in jokes.

Abuse can have many repercussions: the individual might grow up to be abusive themselves with strict standards and harsh punishments for their own children (or anyone they have authority over) for not meeting those standards. The individual might grow up to be fearful and anxious about breaking strict standards engraved in them by harsh childhood punishments. The individual might turn out fine depending on other factors such as a better support system outside of home.

Spoiling children can have just as many repercussions. There must be a balance. Punishment is necessary, physical punishment is not.
I recognised your point, and added my example where I had much the same, although I never have believed in corporal punishment - so taking my mother's nature more than anything else. As I mentioned, the evidence for physical punishments seems to indicate it is just not useful and can harm children - not always of course - but as a doctrine it is a failure. Spoiling children, as mentioned, is something else though.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm not sure what you think that word means if you think it isn't.
Seems to me different people think it means different things. So, you tell me what you had in mind.

I think arrogance is when you claim to have seen everything to the point that you can ignore the evidence in order to assert whatever you want. Epistemic humility is when we constrain our beliefs in proportion to the evidence we have available.
No. I think you just made that up, to fit a definition to pin on someone.
You can always try the dictionaries.
Both are old words, by the way.

You say you care about the truth, but then you say you don't reject one side out of a closed-mindedness towards it being true.
Huh?

However, if you actually cared about the truth, you would be closed towards believing that which is necessarily false or that which has yet to be evidenced, at least until the point that it has sufficiently demonstrated its verisimilitude.
Yeah, that's why I don't accept the evolution theory, with your so called evidence supporting your hypotheses.

If you are going to care about truth, then you're going to have to recant your belief in falsehoods or provide sufficient evidence that they are true.
Yeah. How often that's been done.

Vaguely hyping yourself up as omniscient and getting into a petty insult war with me when I call you out on it is not the behavior of any rational truth-seeker. It's cringe.
Your opinion is acknowledged.
Wanting to have one's way, and complaining when not getting it, bears the markings carried by spoiled children.
 

Rachel Rugelach

Shalom, y'all.
Staff member
Premium Member
"The Torah is not a parenting manual." -- Rabbi Marc Katz, author of The Heart of Loneliness: How Jewish Wisdom Can Help You Cope and Find Comfort
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I was unaware that physical punishment was still a thing in schools and continues to be debated.
I find the public humiliation of a student, especially those of special needs, to be uncalled for.
And it raises another question for me; how advisable for children with special needs to be
in the regular classes. I understand the need for belonging and acceptance, but, unless the school
budget allows for a number of teacher aids, his/her time is taken up addressing the 'special needs'
of these children.
God's word is higher than all the experts
The nexus is what determines corporal punishment vs outright abuse?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I was unaware that physical punishment was still a thing in schools and continues to be debated.
I find the public humiliation of a student, especially those of special needs, to be uncalled for.
And it raises another question for me; how advisable for children with special needs to be
in the regular classes. I understand the need for belonging and acceptance, but, unless the school
budget allows for a number of teacher aids, his/her time is taken up addressing the 'special needs'
of these children.
God's word is higher than all the experts

When I went to school, I had a math teacher who had a paddle on display in his classroom. The teacher claimed he used to have a thinner paddle but broke it one time on one particularly naughty student.

So a saw several students paddled however it was never extreme and the kids who got paddled got to sign the paddle. It became a source of pride to have your name on the paddle. At the end of the school year, the teacher offered to spank anyone who wanted to add their name among the honored. I never heard of any parents complaining.

Different cultures approve/disapprove of different behavior.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Special needs, sounds to me like they have special need. Which indicates that they should be set apart for special care.
There are schools designed for this purpose, with teachers who are trained specifically for this purpose, to attend to these children specifically.
I don't know if that system exists in the US, but I think it should.

In past years these special needs children were sent to schools for that purpose. But it soon became important to ready them for future independence and ability to interact with the general population, learning skills to be self sufficient, to work etc. But it places stress on
other student's patience, its a lot to ask of most kids, especially younger ones.

With regard to God's word, and what it say, many, including myself, are thankful for the discipline we received from our parents.

Yes, but we had the ability to understand the discipline enough to relate the cause.

All children are important, and if the brats get all the attention,
But these are not brats, intentionally, brats usually know why they're punished, not necessarily true with limited understanding.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If paddling was earned, most kids would not tell the parents.

Too bad as I would certainly prefer to know what is happening in the classroom though I know it doesn't always happen.
Some schools encourage parental observation of class in progress. Probably a good thing to take advantage of it.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Everyone in prison will tell you their parents whipped them and then point to how well they turned out for it. Corporal punishment either does harm or possibly nothing at all as people in prison and people with successful law abiding lives have both been raised with it. It's really just an excuse to inflict pain on another human being. In the case of children with special needs, who ,if they have a heart or brain, would think it appropriate?

.
 
Top