And, I'm afraid of saying it, but I'll be blunt: you can't sit a five-year-old down and have a talk to him about what he did wrong. Pain really is the quickest way to reach them, and reach them effectively. There's a better way of saying that, I just can't find it, so keep an open mind for a little bit longer.
Rubric wrote:Honestly I can't see why we limit this to children. I mean, There's this friend of a friend who's a little slow on the social niceties. Rather than having to go through all of the details and reasonings (honestly who can be bothered? I know I'm right, because I'm smarter than him).
Rubric wrote:As open minded as I'm inclined to be, I can't help but realise how easy it is to hide child abuse under the title of discipline.
You incorrectly portrayed our side to be evil people who abuse anybody smaller and less intelligent than us, which is completely untrue.
It seems to me that you were implying that parents who hit their children as punishment are as close as you and "your friend's friend," which I find highly offensive.
Back to the mainstream though, why is it the ones we love who are the only ones that are allowed to physically discipline?
I do not of course refer to the reasoning behind why discipline is required, merely the rationale that has allowed it to continue.
Remember, the smacking we are talking about is not actually out to cause our children pain. We are simply producing the shock to make them understand that their actions were unnacceptable.
What of orphans, living in the archetypal dark and gloomy orphanage run by nuns? Surely the nuns can't be on closer terms with all of their charges than a friend's friend, and yet the discipline they mete out is infamous: and still not regarded as abuse.
Rubric wrote:Yes Thunderdude, [parents] have authority; but why?
"Because I gave birth to you, girl!"
The courts are obviously rather divorced from the individual child, and yet they mete out punishment (albeit infrequently physical) to children as well as adults. Do you find this "highly offensive"?
And, really, anything can be considered abuse. Anything. That instance I talked about earlier where the dad accidentally killed his son by putting him in time out is definately abuse. But a few minutes facing the corner can do a kid good. Yelling at a kid and hurling insults and profanities at him (I heard one mother yell at her child, "I regret having you! I should've had birth control or an abortion or something!") is abuse, but a few firm words in a well-intentioned lecture to tell him that what he did was wrong can do a kid good. Beating a kid until he's bruised and bloody and can't walk straight or can't see out of one eye is abuse. But if he's done something very wrong, and you know your kid well enough to know that he doesn't care if you take his video games away, one or two smacks or a well-deserved swat to the bum can do a kid good.
So I guess we could be debating, "Should parents yell at their kids?" too.
"Because I gave birth to you, girl!" haha.
I find this argument a little hard to penetrate. First you claim that anything can be considered abuse, then you show specific of examples of what are and what are definitely not abuse.
I think by showing the two examples, (I introduced this dichotomy, so it's really my fault) of physical abuse you polarise physical discipline. What about something closer to the middle of the spectrum; discipline with a belt, a cane, or just a serious smacking whereby the child actually couldnt sit down for a week without pain. At what exact point do we draw the line and say "this is abuse?"
© 2004 - 2013, Young Writers Society is proudly powered by phpBB • YWS logo created by Jordan Bobo • Header images © Vlad Studio