Should child abuse be allowed?

[budullewraagh]

do you have any reasonable response to my above post (#49)?

 

before we continue to talk about child abuse in various other nations, i would like to hear what you have to say in response to post #49.

[6431hoho]

1.Bud, the only possible pro for child abuse is discpline (unless if you can find another one)

2. what's wrong with preaching? It looks cliche and I guess that's your hate it

3. if you can understand my english, then I think we will be fine

4. I never used extreme cases

5. Obviously, unless you think I'm an illed person, communication should come before hitting.

6. I don't understand what you're talking about

7. admission system, please explain what admission system is.

[Macroscopic]

"So it's ok just because some countries allow it? You are aware that countries used to make it legal to torture someone for not believing a certain religion' date=' right? So then, by your logic, that was ok?"

 

-I'm pretty sure that their parents don't torture them because of their relgion.[/quote']

You entirely missed my point. I thought that my point was fairly obvious, but I forgot that it was directed at you. So, in simple words that hopefully you will be able to comprehend: You said it was Ok because it was legal in some places. In some places it was legal to torture someone for their religion. You said something is ok if it is legal. Therefore, that implies that you think that people being tortured for their religion was ok because it was legal. I never said anything about kids being tortured by their parents for their religion, which is something that should have been obvious to anyone who read my post.

 

"That's not true. That means I could go up to you and start hitting you, and not get in any kind of trouble.

BTW, as Budullewraagh said, children are not fools. There are many who are smarter and more mature than you, and I'm not talking about the geniuses."

 

1. you will get in trouble

2. I'm talking about parent and child abuse.

3. children are fools until they can defend themselves (as I have said, not being rude to your parent)

Yet again, you missed my point.

 

"children are fools until they can defend themselves (as I have said, not being rude to your parent)"

Reread your own statement, and try to understand the implications. You just said that any physically weak person is a fool. I hope you weren't aware of that.

 

Murders happen all the time. However, the law says murder is illegal. The law doesn't stop murder, so should we just go ahead and legalize it because it didn't stop the murders from happening?"

 

make some sense. Violence is not deterred. Those laws are there to use it in court.

'make some sense':D! Follow your own advice. It's not that I'm not making sense, it's that you can't understand the simple logic that I am using.

So, you think that laws don't deter crime at all? That it just exists so we can punish people, and to try to stop crime from happening at all? You are in no position to tell anyone to make sense, especially someone who is.

-Well, if you know your parent well enough and think that it's a possiblity, then you should be a personal slave (that means giving up your dignity? then yes)

So you should be your parents slave if you know them and it's a possibility? Wow, that's really amazing. And sad. And demented. And..........

[BenSon]

The parents get to choose if their child should be a fool or a civilized citizen

 

You believe a child can't be made into a "civilised citizen' without abusing them? Please elaborate... There are lots of people who are not abused who are good people just like their are meany people who were abused as children who do not turn out as civilised citizens...Your conclusion that abuse equals good citizen is seriously flawed if I were you I'd think about that for a while...

 

From my understanding, Japanese, Singaporean and Indian teachers and parents are allowed to child abuse. And probably many more and I think there are schools in Canada that allows it.

 

Just because some people in certain cultures abuse their children does that make it OK or more so the 'right' thing to do? The coin has too sides remember If you think that because something is OK in one culture in makes it universally exceptable then many laws/customs in your country would be wrong. Just like the laws in those other countries that allow child abuse would be incorrect because laws in other countries prohibit it your argument is a total contradiction. You'll have to have a better argument then that if you want a leg to stand on...

 

~Scott

[Macroscopic]

what's wrong with preaching?

This is a science forum. Not a place where preaching is generally accepted. Most of us here prefer reasoning and logic. If you want to preach, find a different forum, because no one here wants to see it.

[6431hoho]

Macroscopic, I read everything you said and I remain that:

 

"So it's ok just because some countries allow it? You are aware that countries used to make it legal to torture someone for not believing a certain religion, right? So then, by your logic, that was ok?"

 

1. is this "someone" a child? Also, I remain true

2. Defend means being able to bypass in that sentence

3. Give me one study that says violence can be deterred in small time. Maybe there is but I have never seen it.

4. Nice observations but what is your point and supports

[6431hoho]

"This is a science forum. Not a place where preaching is generally accepted. Most of us here prefer reasoning and logic. If you want to preach, find a different forum, because no one here wants to see it."

 

Anyone can make this kind of crap. Please tell me how it is preaching if it's that's any troube to you.

[budullewraagh]

"1.Bud, the only possible pro for child abuse is discpline (unless if you can find another one)"

but once again i ask, how is submission beneficial to a child?

 

"2. what's wrong with preaching? It looks cliche and I guess that's your hate it"

you're mad. i dont want to hear you telling me what to do and what not to do in such a manner.

 

"4. I never used extreme cases "

hitting people? that's quite extreme

 

"5. Obviously, unless you think I'm an illed person, communication should come before hitting."

explain this

 

6. I don't understand what you're talking about

what are you responding to?

 

7. admission system, please explain what admission system is."

college admissions. you know, you apply to colleges and they ultimately accept or reject you. top colleges pay close attention to character and personality. they want interesting individuals to enhance the atmosphere of the campus, not mindless drones.

[BenSon]

hoho did you read my post? i clearly outlined why your argument of its ok in one culture so then its ok in ours was a total contradiction

 

~Scott

[6431hoho]

Benson, this post is about discpline and if it's worth it.

 

1. It's logical enough that a parent who cares about their children would mimize the abuse (and not use it if it's not necessary)

 

2. stop using "just because ____ doesn't mean_____" anyone can make this crap. I was saying that developed countries have child abuse

[BenSon]

anyone can make this crap. I was saying that developed countries have child abuseQUOTE]

 

If by this crap you are referrring to logic then it is clear that not everyone can "make" it because you clearly can't. You want me to stop with that aegument? Need I remind you who brought it up in the first place!

 

~Scott

[budullewraagh]

yes, other countries allow for child abuse to a certain extent. that is irrelevant. child abuse is not good for the child or anybody. again, discipline inhibits the mind, which is problematic with admissions officers (see previous post)

[BenSon]

Are you refering to my replys or hoho's post?

 

BTW hoho im still awaiting your response to the first point of my first reply?

[budullewraagh]

i was replying to hoho's post

[Nevermore]

line:

 

e.g. steals chocolate bar (should be prohibited before)

-hit their hands with wooden stick 5 times

No, stealing a chocolate bar does not authorize that. I doubt anything does. Children are fragile people. You know, there are meathods of punishment other than beatings. What about being grounded? Or having extra chores?

[reverse]

yes, other countries allow for child abuse to a certain extent. that is irrelevant. child abuse is not good for the child or anybody. again, discipline inhibits the mind, which is problematic with admissions officers (see previous post)

 

to some kids discipline can take the form of a concerned look from a parent.

to others the threat (even if never administered) of a smack is the only thing that will work.

As nice as it would be to let children run wild and do what they want, it does not stand them in good stead to fit into a grown up world with grown up rules.

 

And especially when some of the rules are the rules of nature.

 

The energy of that log in the fire ( i asked you not to play with) will migrate from an area of high density (the log) to an area of low density ( your hand).

 

Your body falling off that fence (i asked you not to walk along) will stay in motion until all of the momentum you have acquired due to gravity is stopped by the ground.

[BenSon]

Reverse, I dont think Bud's intention was to imply that children should never be disciplined but rather that they should not be abused. Also what do you mean when you say some of the rules are the rules of nature? Bud never suggested not teaching kids common sense like the examples you gave also in what way would abusing your child after such incidents help?

 

~Scott

[reverse]

Some parents say that a smack on the hand is child abuse.

They are usually the parents with naturally co operative children and assume all children are the same.

 

The other way around.

The child is able to override its (*his/ her) natural curiosity with your assistance and not put a hand in the fire or walk along the top of a wall.

It’s internal discipline is being supported by it’s understanding that there may be unpleasant results.

A threat of a smack on the hand is the lesser of two evils when compared to the smack of concrete to the head (when the child plays where it has been advised not to and falls)

[Sayonara]

If any of you want this thread to continue, I suggest separating "abuse" and "discipline".

[6431hoho]

I've given up on this.

Reasons:

 

1. your values for things are different than others

2. no facts or studies listed. Pure opinions of non-experts.

3. Everything you say is true but it comes down to intensity

 

If you still want me to reply then tell me.

[Coral Rhedd]

Why give up Hoho? The solution is simple:

 

Definition of discipline -

 

Definition of child abuse-

[6431hoho]

Child abuse is the process of disciplining but only for those who need it.

Child abuse isn't always discplining but it certain'y is most of the times unless you count the illed

[budullewraagh]

you should define "discipline."

 

"Child abuse is the process of disciplining but only for those who need it."

so are you saying that disciplining those who do not need discipline is not child abuse?

i think child abuse is unnecessary in every case.

 

who are these "illed" you speak of?

[Coral Rhedd]

Here is the definition of physical child abuse according to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

 

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/childabuse/a/05_abuse_types.htm

 

Physical Abuse is physical injury (ranging from minor bruises to severe fractures or death) as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, hitting (with a hand, stick, strap, or other object), burning, or otherwise harming a child. Such injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caretaker intended to hurt the child.

 

It seems to me that their standard is whether the action result in harm. But I can assure you all that if a child protection investigator finds that a parent has punished in such a way as to cause bruises, wound, fractures, or scars that child may be removed from parental custody.

 

Now that you all have a definition perhaps you can also have more clarity.

 

More light, less heat.

[6431hoho]

you should define "discipline."

"Child abuse is the process of disciplining but only for those who need it."

so are you saying that disciplining those who do not need discipline is not child abuse?

i think child abuse is unnecessary in every case.

who are these "illed" you speak of?

 

1. Just look at the word after "only for those who"

2. in this thread, you can guess that illed are those who aren't guilty for child abusing.