Whirr Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1307563591' post='5267465'] Physical and mental anguish is also fairly subjective when you put your mind to it. You obviously can't define every instance where something is or isn't child abuse; decisions about it are often either spontaneous or based off of previous decisions. My point was that I consider harsh forms of corporal punishment to be extremely close, if not crossing into the territory, of child abuse. I turned out fine without corporal punishments, so it's definitely not a necessity for anyone. If you want to teach your child to be sneaky and do bad things without the parents knowing, go ahead and slap the wits out of your child. I personally feel it's an archaic form of punishment that leads to nowhere. [/quote] The term anguish isn't subjective. It refers to severe damage physically or emotionally. I agree that [i]harsh[/i] corporal punishment would be child abuse. But corporal punishment in general isn't necessarily child abuse. Children that are [i]actually[/i] abused would probably find it offensive to liken their situation to getting a spanking, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinitus Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Outdated. As far as I can see, the Corporal punishment tactic is one that establishes a correlation between immoral behaviors and pain. However, this does not raise them to understand or respect the deeper consequences of similar actions in later life. It must be taught at a young age that certain immoral behaviors are followed by harsh, legal consequences. The flaw in "Hit First, Teach Later" is that at a young age, the first thing they think is "If I do this, they'll hit me.", because the first thing you do is hit them. They don't think that "If I do this, I could go to jail/it's wrong/what have you.", they think of the immediate consequence, because that is the far more harsh of the two, as you've established via Corporal punishment. They think of hitting more than the greater consequence because hitting hurts more and is immediate, and because of how young they are and their limited understanding, they really only care that they'll be hit. As a result, when they become older, or even when they are still young, the conclusion is drawn that they can avoid being hit if they can avoid being caught, and as a result, the child learns to respect the repremending, but not respect the immorality of the action. Criminals respect the jail time, which is why the run when the police come, but they most certaintly don't care that whatever they've done/they're doing/they're going to do is immoral. And to put icing on the cake, because they've experienced corperal punishment, as the child grow up, they will show signs of aggression towards those around them. Anecdotal evidence is not valid, and never is in almost any argument. Mostly because all anecdotal evidence involves assuming correlation and cause are synonymous, which they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Whirr' timestamp='1307583545' post='5268377'] The term anguish isn't subjective. It refers to severe damage physically or emotionally. I agree that [i]harsh[/i] corporal punishment would be child abuse. But corporal punishment in general isn't necessarily child abuse. Children that are [i]actually[/i] abused would probably find it offensive to liken their situation to getting a spanking, [/quote] You just defined [i]anguish[/i], supposedly not a subjective term, with [i]severe[/i], a subjective term. How does the law draw the line between child abuse and effective, legal corporal punishment? Is there a T-chart showing a difference, or is it highly based on one's morals and ideals? I'm sure there is at least one set of contradicting cases in different states where effectively the same "action" was defined as both child abuse and legal punishment. [quote name='Infinitus' timestamp='1307587558' post='5268493'] Outdated. As far as I can see, the Corporal punishment tactic is one that establishes a correlation between immoral behaviors and pain. However, this does not raise them to understand or respect the deeper consequences of similar actions in later life. It must be taught at a young age that certain immoral behaviors are followed by harsh, legal consequences. The flaw in "Hit First, Teach Later" is that at a young age, the first thing they think is "If I do this, they'll hit me.", because the first thing you do is hit them. They don't think that "If I do this, I could go to jail/it's wrong/what have you.", they think of the immediate consequence, because that is the far more harsh of the two, as you've established via Corporal punishment. They think of hitting more than the greater consequence because hitting hurts more and is immediate, and because of how young they are and their limited understanding, they really only care that they'll be hit. As a result, when they become older, or even when they are still young, the conclusion is drawn that they can avoid being hit if they can avoid being caught, and as a result, the child learns to respect the repremending, but not respect the immorality of the action. Criminals respect the jail time, which is why the run when the police come, but they most certaintly don't care that whatever they've done/they're doing/they're going to do is immoral. And to put icing on the cake, because they've experienced corperal punishment, as the child grow up, they will show signs of aggression towards those around them. Anecdotal evidence is not valid, and never is in almost any argument. Mostly because all anecdotal evidence involves assuming correlation and cause are synonymous, which they aren't. [/quote] I hadn't realized you returned. Thanks for telling me, babe. D:< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whirr Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1307832563' post='5275638'] You just defined [i]anguish[/i], supposedly not a subjective term, with [i]severe[/i], a subjective term. How does the law draw the line between child abuse and effective, legal corporal punishment? Is there a T-chart showing a difference, or is it highly based on one's morals and ideals? I'm sure there is at least one set of contradicting cases in different states where effectively the same "action" was defined as both child abuse and legal punishment. [/quote] I fail to see how a word can be subjective. Yes, severe can be used subjectively, but the word itself is NOT subjective in that it specifically refers to a meaning. Furthermore, child abuse is the sexual, physical, or mental abuse of a child or the neglect of a child resulting in serious harm or death. This is not verbatim, but if you're looking forr the exact legal definition, refer to the CAPTA definition. Anyway, spankings wouldn't be considered child abuse as no serious emotional, physical, or sexual (?) damage is done to the child. If you're referring to the [i]literal[/i] definition of corporal punishment, then it's definitely child abuse. But that's already illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydra of Ages Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='Whirr' timestamp='1307965083' post='5279924'] I fail to see how a word can be subjective. [/quote] '[i]Severe[/i]' describes something as having a quality of '[i]strictness[/i]' greater than a nondefined base. Since the base is variable and there isn't a legal standard for the acceptable limit of '[i]anguish[/i]', Severe is indeed a subjective term unless already coined as part of a jargon. Dark's argument is that you can't easily determine the extent of emotional damage done to a child (Btw, what is "Sexual damage" and how does it not fit into mental or physical?), so you can't say there's a definitive legal line where there's enough emotional abuse to be 'enough to convict', especially when you consider people all process emotional abuse in different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whirr Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='Hydra of Legend' timestamp='1308461639' post='5294503'] '[i]Severe[/i]' describes something as having a quality of '[i]strictness[/i]' greater than a nondefined base. Since the base is variable and there isn't a legal standard for the acceptable limit of '[i]anguish[/i]', Severe is indeed a subjective term unless already coined as part of a jargon. Dark's argument is that you can't easily determine the extent of emotional damage done to a child (Btw, what is "Sexual damage" and how does it not fit into mental or physical?), so you can't say there's a definitive legal line where there's enough emotional abuse to be 'enough to convict', especially when you consider people all process emotional abuse in different ways. [/quote] For starters, I'd like to point out that your definition of the word severe is, in fact, [i]not[/i] the definition of the word severe. Unless, of course, the dictionary you're referencing has an abnormal amount of typos. The term severe is not subjective. It's no more subjective than hard, shiny, rough, etc... To say that the term is subjective is to insinuate that there's some type of ambiguity regarding its meaning. There isn't. If someone has a severe skin disorder, their skin is in very bad shape. What you're essentially saying is that I could have a single blackhead on my nose and it would be considered a severe skin disorder. Also, I didn't say [i]sexual damage[/i], I said sexual [i]abuse[/i]. If someone is sexually abusing a child, it can't simply be classified under mental and physical abuse because it's a different form of abuse and has different effects on a child's health. Obviously, it would be moronic to toss it in with every other form of mental and physical abuse in the legal definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydra of Ages Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='Whirr' timestamp='1308467416' post='5294655'] For starters, I'd like to point out that your definition of the word severe is, in fact, [i]not[/i] the definition of the word severe. Unless, of course, the dictionary you're referencing has an abnormal amount of typos. [/quote] Merriam-Webster: [i]"se·vere adj \sə-ˈvir\ se·ver·erse·ver·est Definition of SEVERE 1 a : strict in judgment, discipline, or government b : of a strict or stern bearing or manner : austere 2 : rigorous in restraint, punishment, or requirement : stringent, restrictive"[/i] It's an adjective, which means that by definition it describes something having a certain amount of a specified quality greater than an unspecified base. In this case, the quality is [i]'Being strict'[/i]. [quote name='Whirr' timestamp='1308467416' post='5294655'] The term severe is not subjective. It's no more subjective than hard, shiny, rough, etc... To say that the term is subjective is to insinuate that there's some type of ambiguity regarding its meaning. There isn't. If someone has a severe skin disorder, their skin is in very bad shape. What you're essentially saying is that I could have a single blackhead on my nose and it would be considered a severe skin disorder. [/quote] So, is -10 degrees celsius a severely cold day? Or does it have to be -30? How many blackheads does it take for the skin to be in bad shape? What if they have a [i]'severe'[/i] amount of sunburning, does that also make it a severe skin disorder? Hard, shiny, rough and the like ARE subjective; many adjectives are. The ambiguity surrounding those words isn't their meaning, but the extent they imply. To use your example as my own, if someone has skin in 'bad shape', we need to denote somebody as having skin in 'good shape' first. If our example of 'good shape' changes, then so does the definition. "Subjective"- depending on the subject's view of 'good shape'. [quote name='Whirr' timestamp='1308467416' post='5294655'] Also, I didn't say [i]sexual damage[/i], I said sexual [i]abuse[/i]. If someone is sexually abusing a child, it can't simply be classified under mental and physical abuse because it's a different form of abuse and has different effects on a child's health. Obviously, it would be moronic to toss it in with every other form of mental and physical abuse in the legal definition. [/quote] [quote name='Whirr' timestamp='1307965083' post='5279924'] Anyway, spankings wouldn't be considered child abuse as no serious emotional, physical, or [b]sexual(?) damage[/b] is done to the child. If you're referring to the [i]literal[/i] definition of corporal punishment, then it's definitely child abuse. But that's already illegal. [/quote] No, you said 'Child abuse' causes emotional, physical and [b]sexual damage[/b] quite clearly. If it causes mental trauma to a child, it constitutes mental abuse. If it causes physical trauma, it's physical abuse. Sexual abuse is usually both. Different 'effects' on a child's health? Like what? If it alters their mental state in a negative way, then it's mental abuse. If it physically harms them, it's physical abuse. There's little room between that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whirr Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='Hydra of Legend' timestamp='1308492555' post='5294972'] Merriam-Webster: [i]"se·vere adj \sə-ˈvir\ se·ver·erse·ver·est Definition of SEVERE 1 a : strict in judgment, discipline, or government b : of a strict or stern bearing or manner : austere 2 : rigorous in restraint, punishment, or requirement : stringent, restrictive"[/i] [B]Your definition of severe is incorrect in this context, in case you didn't get it before. The definition of severe would only be correct in a sentence such as, "The judge's sentence was severe." You can't spank a child too strictly. That doesn't make any sense.[/b] It's an adjective, which means that by definition it describes something having a certain amount of a specified quality greater than an unspecified base. In this case, the quality is [i]'Being strict'[/i]. So, is -10 degrees celsius a severely cold day? Or does it have to be -30? How many blackheads does it take for the skin to be in bad shape? What if they have a [i]'severe'[/i] amount of sunburning, does that also make it a severe skin disorder? . [B]Severe specifically refers to something exceedingly bad. If it's not an extreme medical problem, it's not severe. You can argue all you want, but medically speaking- a blackhead is not a severe skin disorder. Ever.[/b] Hard, shiny, rough and the like ARE subjective; many adjectives are. The ambiguity surrounding those words isn't their meaning, but the extent they imply. To use your example as my own, if someone has skin in 'bad shape', we need to denote somebody as having skin in 'good shape' first. If our example of 'good shape' changes, then so does the definition. "Subjective"- depending on the subject's view of 'good shape'. [B]This would be fine and dandy if it didn't overlook the fact that there IS a standard for healthy or bad skin, just as there is one for child abuse. If there wasn't, nobody would be prosecuted for child abuse. The word severe wouldn't exist if it didn't denote extreme conditions. People would just say kinda bad, bad, real bad, etc...[/b] No, you said 'Child abuse' causes emotional, physical and [b]sexual damage[/b] quite clearly. If it causes mental trauma to a child, it constitutes mental abuse. If it causes physical trauma, it's physical abuse. Sexual abuse is usually both. Different 'effects' on a child's health? Like what? If it alters their mental state in a negative way, then it's mental abuse. If it physically harms them, it's physical abuse. There's little room between that. [B]You fail to realize that a sexually abused child is mentally and physically damaged in a different way than children who are just beaten. Why do you think there's different types of child psychologists? Because of the unemployment rate?[/b] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vough Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 I think that it should be sort of a semi-last resort. If you spank your kid daily, that isn't discipline. If your child does something bad, then spanking is always an option to teach discipline. If it's too often, then discipline isn't ensued. I also think that the parents that hit their kids for doing almost nothing are just idiots. Your kid doesn't come the very second you call? That's a lecture, not a slap. Your kid slaps their sibling? That deserves corporal punishment. See where I'm going with this? As previously estabalished, beating is too far. That's more child abuse then discipline. I'm unsure if I would use corporal punishment to punish my kid(s)...I would of course save it as a last resort. I would hopefully never, if I chose to. And then there's the age of disctinction. Basicly, be smart when to start disciplining a child like that. Age 4? No. Age 8? Yes. Because at age 8 they have a sense of right and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Starrk Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I suggest that instead of spanking, smacking, and washing out your children's mouths, put them in a cold shower for like 5-10 minutes. That will get their s*** in line without any physical abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonk Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Corporal Punishment is definitely necessary in the United States. I don't cause any trouble because I always have a fear of getting smacked or something along those lines. People today think that their children are too soft to receive Corporal Punishment. Now we see teenagers killing people on the streets. There should be a balance when Corporal Punishment is used, as either too much can be considered abuse and too little means you are just spoiling them. The justice system also needs to adopt Corporal Punishment because other countries that use this sentence have fewer crime rates than those that do not. America as a whole is just only giving their children/criminals a slap on the wrist (Incarceration does not work as we are overextending our prisons AND just increasing our taxes to support the inmates). If we adopt more corporal punishment, people will be more afraid of committing a crime or bad deed than just merely a time out or a large fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 The argument has been made time and time again that corporal punishment doesn't tell a child not to do something, just that they should do something secretly. If my mom slaps me for stealing a candy bar, I'll just make sure that she doesn't see me steal it next time. I'll never really know [b]what[/b] I did wrong, just that I may have done something wrong. Does anyone want to provide psychological evidence showing that corporal punishment does lower crime rates? I'd love to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 Hopefully none of my future employers are reading this, but if corporal punishment was used in my house, I would probably have dead parents. Just something to sleep on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue-Eyes493 Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 It depends on both the punishment and what the child did to deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Colonel Remo Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote name='Blue-Eyes493' timestamp='1312955390' post='5429604'] It depends on both the punishment and what the child did to deserve it. [/quote] Of course If the child took a candy and gets punished via draconian methods, somethings wrong But if they hit their sibling, they better get spanking [i][u]Source:[/u][/i] Everybody and their mothers (wat) who had sisters that weren't punished the same way as the male child was during their same age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.