Ok then...



Wil,

Do you realize you haven't yet provided an example of corporal punishment that supports your point?

Just because I don't have you on ignore doesn't mean I'm going to engage you. If you wish, I can put you on ignore also.

Yes, obviously it's temporary, but it's still responsibility.

And yes they are allowed to discipline children in ways that parents might not approve of. Parental approval isn't actually a major factor in what discipline is allowed. For example you could call your kids teacher and tell them you're ok with them hitting your kid in specific situations and they still can't do it. Again, I wonder why....

I'm not desperate to prove my argument. I proved it. Just because you claim you don't agree with a simple logical truth, doesn't make it less true.

I'm quite confident in who is coming out worse in this discussion.

Anyone with any shred of common sense can see how incredibly stupid your argument is. Again, no, no one else has responsibility of my child in the sense of raising them and making most decisions in their lives. Someone very well be "responsible" for them at school or daycare or whatever for a temporary time. That is no where in the same scope as responsibility for their overall lives. Any reasonable person can understand what is meant here, as much as you don't want to admit you are wrong.

And yes, one of us looks like a fool, and I'm confident it is you. You are taking things to the point of stupidity. If you want to argue that physical discipline is always detrimental under any circumstances, with real world examples, I welcome the debate. If you wish to continue to say that you believe in things but can't think of how you could actually apply them, lol.

Wil, this is why it's hard to talk to you. You can't keep the context in mind. We're talking responsibility for disciplining the child. Man, do you have ADHD?

Also , lol at 'welcoming the debate'. That was what we were talking about!

Shouldn't it be a lot easier for you to show that physical discipline is sometimes beneficial or necessary than for somebody else to show that physical discipline is always detrimental?

I'm the easiest person to talk to. You are the one being difficult. Child care personnel rarely discipline children. That's why when unacceptable behavior happens at school parents are notified, so they may actually discipline the child.

You are bring purposefully disingenuous here. We ALL know this to be generally true. My mother doesn't discipline my child. She informs me when my child acts up and lets me discipline her. The only other person in this world, at this point, who disciplines my child other than me is my wife. This is generally consistent with my argument. It is not consistent with yours.

You continue along these lines of thought that don't really apply, being difficult because you don't want to admit being wrong.

I've done that.

Well that seems to be a point of dispute, doesn't it? What's the best example you've come up with? It's not punching a kid in the face for finding an unsecured weapon, I hope.

I've linked the study that, in general, was in agreement with my position. Long term physical discipline can lead to detrimental effects. In the short term (and if used sparingly) it can immediately correct behavior.

My position has always been that if the danger of the behavior is strong enough to risk serious injury, physical discipline may be the best course of action. Some other situations (extreme) may also apply.

I don't believe any aspect of my position are extreme in any way, shape, or form.

Why so weaselly? What is the most obvious and indisputable scenario you can think of where you think physical discipline is the appropriate and best course of action?

This is just wrong. Getting yelled at. Losing privileges. Being removed from sports teams/clubs. Being given a time out. Going to see the principle. Detention. Manual labour. Suspension. Etc etc are all punishments given out by the schools. Again, sometimes against the wishes of the parents. Coaches of teams have even more leeway and can punish kids by assigning extra physical activity. Crazy!


.

This is almost certainly untrue. And if it actually is true I feel sorry for your kids.


It's actually not really relevant to the argument at all.

Sigh. I've spellled out multiple scenarios where I thought it would be appropriate. Everything would depend on multiple factors, though. The right answer here is "it depends". There is nothing weaselly about it.

The thing about 'it depends' answers is that it's still possible to lay out one example where it would apply. Just add the conditions you think are necessary.

Oh my God, after reading this I just realized something. You don't have children, do you?

Lol Wil. Would you like to bet on it?

How many, how old?

No. No. We're not changing the subject. You made a claim. Are you going to bet on it?

Why would I place a wager on it? What you said is indicative of a person who doesn't have children. I have no reason to place money on it. Do you need money that bad?

I simply asked you a question because what you said goes against all my experiences about people with children in almost every case.

Do you have children? If so, how many, and how old are they? If you recently had a first child who is still an infant, then I may understand why you said what you said. Other than that, if you have children that are above 2-3 years old or so, what you said makes no sense.

As if we needed any further proof that wil's entire worldview is informed only by his own personal experiences. And he assumes everybody else's is too.

There is a distinct reason I said what I said. I could only understand it after I became a parent, as I think many other parents would relate to. Without having children, the idea of it wouldn't make sense.

No, my entire worldview is not made up entirely of my own personal experiences, but in this particular case my perception is mostly universal.

Hah. Ok so you don't believe your claim. I'm not posting personal details on 2+2 because you're an idiot and grasping for any straws you can find.

But I don't need children to know how child care professionals discipline children. So why don't you explain what part of my post lead you to your claim?

Lol @ this.

I'll rephrase the question : do you have ANY children above 3 years of age? I don't need to know names, gender, or number of children. I care nothing about personal details to use against you in any malicious way. I'm asking you a direct question : do you have any children above 3 years old?

lol "mostly universal"
Exactly my point. You think everybody else is burdened by your own personal limitations.