CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Admittedly I could only watch a few minutes, I was getting ready to smack the lady after she got so pissed at the bacon.
Kids are kids, they are going to make mistakes, get messy, and not always listen. They aren't little adults.
Pouring hot sauce down a kids throat is absolutely wrong. For tiny tummies it can hurt, some can cause blisters, others can choke on it causing severe pain down the throat. To subject your child to that makes you a tormentor, not a parent.
Kids are kids, they are going to make mistakes, get messy, and not always listen. They aren't little adults.
Exactly. If a person wasn't prepared to handle this then they never truly wanted the responsibility of being a parent (and are therefore unfit to be a guardian)
Pouring hot sauce down a kids throat is absolutely wrong. For tiny tummies it can hurt, some can cause blisters, others can choke on it causing severe pain down the throat. To subject your child to that makes you a tormentor, not a parent
shove hot sauce down their throats is a mischaracterization of the discipline tool, and I am pretty sure you know that.
When I was growing up, the standard penalty for cussing or lying was having your mouth washed out with soap. Believe me, hot sauce was a very welcomed innovation.
How do you discipline your kids. What punishments do you use?
Two and five years old
Your kids are still very young. I assume that you are still very young, too. (A Millennial?)
...or expect they need to act like little adults.
The belief that little kids do not need to behave like little adults in public is why so many patrons and servers in the restaurants I worked at were so annoyed when people brought their kids in.
I watched too many indulgent parents with very low expectations of public behavior raise your generation.
When the demand of adult behavior does not start at 5 or 6, then years of guided practice in adulthood, and opportunity for establishment of adult habits is lost.
That is one of the many reasons so many Millennials are 10 years behind in their development, and not picking up adult responsibilities until their late 20s.
I am from a very different generation, and was raised according to the same standards that were applied to my parent's generation.
"Good" kids were seen, but not heard, except for the occasional "please" and "thank you".
"Bad" kids were kids who did not act like little adults in public places like stores and restaurants. Bad behavior in public included
- being noisy or demanding attention
- touching things in stores without permission
- not being careful or neat when eating
- leaving a mess at a restaurant table (after age 2 or 3)
- getting up from the table without permission, or wandering around the restaurant
- throwing tantrums anywhere
- any defiance of parental authority or instruction anywhere
The question "Do I need to take you to the restroom, young man/lady?" was universal code for start acting like a young gentleman/lady or I will take you to the restroom and spank you.
I am not saying there are not alternate ways to meet the standard, but the standard of "little adults" is a damned important one.
Two and five years old, my eldest is limited-verbal autistic
The autism is a wild card. Regarding the 2-year-old, you are still a good 5 or 6 years from finding out how well you laid the disciplinary groundwork down from 2 to 4.
By then the behavioral foundation and expectations are set and it is too late for anything but try to adjust what you are building on it.
When I was growing up, the standard penalty for cussing or lying was having your mouth washed out with soap.
Not all parents did that, and yes while there was a very real possibility of swallowing some of the soap, many hot sauces are too much for little tummies, can be remarkably painful and cause sores in the kids mouth and as I said previously, has the chance of burning the throat. It's torture, not correction.
How do you discipline your kids. What punishments do you use?
Depends on the infractions. Most of the time it's time out and conversation. On very rare instance we will spank-which I think is what you are trying to get at- but a few things have to be met.
1. The child must be doing something that could hurt them (running into the street, climbing a bookshelf) and they must have been spoken to and put in time out a few times.
2. NEVER spank when angry.
3. Only spank on the diapered fanny once or a quick tap on the hand. I say tap because I've never slapped.
Any spanking my children have gotten have been a quick form of correction when all others have failed, have only been once, and afterwards we talked about why and hugged. Now, keep in mind they are two and five so I don't know how much goes in there and is retained but I haven't had to spank for the same thing twice and I've only spanked him when he was doing something dangerous after being told not to and put in time out repeatedly.
No I'm not a millennial, I just waited until I was ready to have children. To me that was important.
I watched too many indulgent parents with very low expectations of public behavior raise your generation.
Oh no, this is very different. Manners must be taught and are taught. If we are in public then my kids sit in the booth. They can fidget all they want, and we know their limits so we either eat quickly or take a to go, so they can run and play at a better location later. I do not like it when parents let their children run all around in places ill suited for them. Teaching manners and proper behavior is just as important as letting them be kids. If that means the parents don't get to have a leisurely seat at dinner then fine, that's the sacrifices you make when you have kids.
Then again I'm the parent getting dirty with their kids in the backyard, making mud pies and pushing my little girl on the swings. Many of the newer parents have their noses in their phones or tablets and don't play with their kids. Time goes by too quick, one day they won't want mommy to chase them or kiss their boo boo's.
Smart. I was a late parent, too. I cannot imagine parenthood in the 20s. Even 30 year-olds are at a disadvantage. There are just too many ducks that need to be in a row.
Do you have kids?
One. He is a Millennial.
I got together with his mom when he was 8, and we married when he was 10. His dad is a worthless, absentee POS, so I am his only dad.
I had to play catch up on basic stuff. He never had chores until me, so the work ethic was 7 or 8 years behind, as was the development of a sense of responsibility. Even so, we managed to keep him from growing up to be a typical millennial snowflake. He has no patience for entitlement or whining.
Some of the credit goes to dyslexia, epilepsy, and a tumor in his spine. We never let any of his difficulties be excuses for lower standards, or opportunities for complaining. As I said in another post, pain is the teacher. Without pain and adversity, we simply do not grow.
I spanked him once when he was 10, and did it well enough that I never had to again. I could just remind him, and ask if a repeat was needed.
It never was.
We worked hard to instill a sense of responsibility and personal accountability. One of the best talks we ever had was when he was 11 or 12.
We explained to him that under no circumstances would we ever bail him out of jail. It would not matter if he did it, if he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, or with the wrong people. His job was to only be at the right places regardless of the time, and to be nowhere near the wrong people, EVER.
That's really fantastic. It takes a strong person to step up and lay down both the law and love for a child that isn't their biological. That's a true father.
It's always terrible when parents aren't parents, either they are absentee or just wanting to be friends. As you said, it's hard work and kids are worth the effort.
I would intervene though possibly not in the same manner as the example. This scene is happening in an establishment and I would first go comment to the management that something controversial may be going down on their premises. They may do nothing, but more likely than not they'd start observing to see if my tip was on point and then they'd decide their next step. I could imagine them either:
a) Asking that family to leave the premises until they've sorted out their behavior/punishment, or
b) taking the hot sauce back saying it's theirs and it's not provided for the sake of torturing kids, or
c) calling police or some other authority to come deal with it.
But note, I'm hesitant to directly intervene if it's not a case of lasting physical harm happening. There are many many variations on parenting and although some parents really do need to be put in their place it is sometimes just a difference of philosophy. For example, there are people who call any type of verbal escalation abuse, and there are others who see the verbal escalation as so much more preferable to if it turned physical, and there are others who agree they don't want to verbally escalate but in that one particular case they ended up at wit's end and it went there.
Another example. My wife and I generally see eye to eye on how to raise our kids. Once in a while they'll have an extended period with just one parent watching them (like my wife may be booked for something work related a couple days and I've been immersed with the kids the whole time she was gone). Then after she is back a kid may do something and I may react very strongly with whatever action, and she may be stunned, even a little angry to see me react. BUT, and here's the big but, if after being stunned I explain to her all the things that happened through the two days she wasn't around then pretty much suddenly "oh yeah, I get it, I'd have blown my stack, too" is the response. Anyway, when strangers watch another parent/child interaction they have zero of that context of whatever preceded in the longer term.
Let me ask you this, if you knew that before the hot sauce strategy the mom used to spank that child with a stick, and now she has stopped doing that in favor of the hot sauce approach, are you a little less mad at her? And what if it didn't start with hot sauce. What if it originally was just eat your vegetables. And he flat refused, pretty much forever. And that finally escalated to well if you won't eat your vegetables then I'll give you the vegetables THIS way. (And I don't like that last scenario. It's absurd. But again, it makes you hate the fact she went for the hot sauce just a little bit less).
And now here's a final thought. I don't want to see any parent impose a ridiculously harsh punishment. But ALSO, I don't want to see a parent totally ignore that their kids is acting like a monster. I'm actually equally horrified to see someone being turned into a spoiled brat bully as I am to seeing them sternly punished.
Let me ask you this, if you knew that before the hot sauce strategy the mom used to spank that child with a stick, and now she has stopped doing that in favor of the hot sauce approach, are you a little less mad at her?
No, I think someone who is aware of this treatment (if it is frequent/habitual) would have a responsibility to call Child Protective Services/Police
And what if it didn't start with hot sauce. What if it originally was just eat your vegetables. And he flat refused, pretty much forever. And that finally escalated to well if you won't eat your vegetables then I'll give you the vegetables THIS way. (And I don't like that last scenario. It's absurd. But again, it makes you hate the fact she went for the hot sauce just a little bit less).
No. As Mint-tea pointed out, it is expected that children are going to behave in this way at times because they are not even close to being fully developed yet. If one was not prepared for this responsibility without resorting to abusive measures, than they never wanted to truly be a parent and are not fit to be guardians. I have no sympathy for Adults that physically abuse children (particularly very little children) simply because they are "out of patience". If that is an Adult parents "excuse", than they should forfeit their membership to Homo Sapiens and join the other Primates/Mammals in the wild..
And now here's a final thought. I don't want to see any parent impose a ridiculously harsh punishment. But ALSO, I don't want to see a parent totally ignore that their kids is acting like a monster. I'm actually equally horrified to see someone being turned into a spoiled brat bully as I am to seeing them sternly punished.
Agreed. But how is bulling one's children through physical/verbal abuse going to teach children not to be bullies themselves? Just because one doesn't "Hot Sauce" or spank their kids doesn't mean that they are "negligent". Is there not a more optimal from of parenting between these two relative extremes?
I'm actually equally horrified to see someone being turned into a spoiled brat bully as I am to seeing them sternly punished.
Yep. Entitled assholes do not just magically appear in our society.
My dad was not about to inflict rude or selfish brats on the world. As a result, my parents were very strict, and we were no strangers to spankings, slapped faces, mouths washed out with soap, and hot sauce on the tongue.
But even as children, we were well-behaved enough that our family was welcome anywhere.
Anyway, when strangers watch another parent/child interaction they have zero of that context of whatever preceded in the longer term.
TRUE!
What I learned as both a teacher and a CPS Investigator, and experienced as a parent include the following lessons.
- 1 - Kids have free will, and will often use it destructively if left to their own devices. As much to the point, they often struggle against attempts to bend their behavior into habits and attitudes that enable them to be successful and productive adults.
- 2- Shaping kids into decent, careful people has no one-size-fits-all solutions. What works on some kids is ineffective with others. Parents often have to try multiple different methods before finding something that works with one kid, and find something else that works with a different kid.
- 3 - Kids are far more likely to be damaged by inadequate/ineffective discipline or by parental inattention than by harsher (but safe) punishment and extremely strict parenting. Neglect and accidents when the kid is unsupervised, account for far more deaths and injuries than abuse and "accidents" at the hands of parents/caretakers.
- 4 - Although the ideal is that the parent is calm when delivering discipline, reality makes this unlikely. In order for operant conditioning to be effective at discouragement of bad behaviors, the consequence has to be almost immediate. This is precisely during the time frame when the parent is most likely to be angry.
- 5 - Being a parent is infinitely harder and more frustrating than it looks. Everything I thought was so obvious when I was just a teacher dealing with other people's kids turned out to be totally wrong and unrealistic when I had a kid of my own.
I'm very hesitant - but that was abuse.plain and simple. The idea of pouring hot sauce on a kid's tongue, I find damn repugnant. She needs to experience that - anybody doing it to a child needs to experience that, or worse, before they do it to a child.
I have sat by when children were disciplined harshly - but that's beyond disciplining.
How is using hot sauce as a discipline tool abuse?
It is more intimate than spanking, and uses the same set of punishment triggers, but precludes the possibility of damaging the child.
True, the reasons for the "discipline" were badly chosen in the video, but that was a problem with bad acting/directing for fictional situations, not an issue with the punishment itself.
Were the same punishment used for actual and intentional misbehavior, it would be in line with any version of punishment/discipline that has a chance at success.
The biggest problem with hot sauce as a discipline tool is that its impact is inversely proportional to the frequency with which it is used. When it is used too often, kids get used to it, and ultimately become "pepper bellies" who enjoy spicy foods.
A punishment that the subject enjoys is generally called a reward, and as such reinforces the behavior rather than discouraging it.
You know, it's difficult for me to be clear on this - not that it's emotional - I actually support spankings (NOT beatings) when not in public - this feels sadistic, and also it's a public disciplining. Disciplining in public can quickly become a matter of humiliating, and that I find very sick. That damages the psyche of a child a bit too recklessly.
It looks to me like you are conflating what makes you uncomfortable or unhappy with what makes something bad for the child.
Humiliation and shame are powerful tools for behavior modification. These are what society uses most to enforce standards for manners and respect of others.
Whether we like it or not, well placed trauma is healthy, and required to make us into better people.
Humiliation and shame are powerful tools for behavior modification.
Whether we like it or not, well placed trauma is healthy
Christ, someone really needs to keep you away from kids.
Are you even aware of the extremely well-documented links between childhood trauma and adult crime and/or psychological problems?
All the people leaving comments that abusing kids is fine seem to have a common denominator: they believe the child is their property and they should have exclusive control over the development of its personality.
How is using hot sauce as a discipline tool abuse?
What do you think would happen if you used hot sauce as a "discipline tool" for an adult? You'd get punched in the face, right? Hence, any adult would call it abuse. How is doing the same thing to someone too small to fight back not abuse?
Why pick on mother? I had a "harsh" step father. He didn't use hot sauce (didn't like it so had none in the house). HIS favorite was a razor strop, but anything handy would do, a switch, Ping Pong Paddle, 2x4, hammer handle etc. I DO agree that some kids I've seen really NEED some strong discipline ... not just a stern talking to! But it has to be (dare I say it??), "conservative" rather than "liberal"! (Never thought I'd say such a thing!), but, sometimes it's better to bite the bullet, rather than the kid. :<)
OH, DEFINATELY! One happens to be living in the White House at this time! Another is in Alabama running for the Senate.
Lol. Well, that is a consistent framework you provide then.
I think there are situations where force is justified however I do not agree with the Hot Sauce treatment and think that the situations where force should be applied are much more extreme cases (i.e. there was nothing going on in that video (aside from possibly the Mother's behavior) that could merit any such treatment)
In response to I DO agree that some kids I've seen really NEED some strong discipline ... not just a stern talking to! you wrote
Do you think this applies to adults as well?
Look at all the bastards in the news for sexual harassment and assault (Weinstein, Franken, Conyers, Clinton, O'Reily, Cosby, etc., ad nauseum) and ask yourself if a stern talking to would change their behavior.
We all know damned well they need to be the subjects of pointed and public physical discipline.
marcusmoon: Look at all the bastards in the news for sexual harassment and assault (Weinstein, Franken, Conyers, Clinton, O'Reily, Cosby, etc., ad nauseum) and ask yourself if a stern talking to would change their behavior.
Nomenclature (to marcusmoon): These are exactly the sorts of people who were probably abused as kids, you sophist halfwit.
marcusmoon: My dad was not about to inflict rude or selfish brats on the world. As a result, my parents were very strict, and we were no strangers to spankings, slapped faces, mouths washed out with soap, and hot sauce on the tongue.
I overwhelmingly agree with Nomenclature on this issue (although don't agree with the "name-calling" he has applied).
Now, you stated that your parents spanked, slapped, soaped, and hot sauced you as you were growing up. My first question is, when did this end? When you 13, 18, 25, ...? Also, was it tacitly understood in your family that if/when your parents misbehaved/were "out of line" that they were subject to the same punishments? Have you ever "punished" you parents in a similar way that you were? Or do you feel that there is something morally objectionable to treating your parents in this way?
In my experience, I have stated before on CD about this issue, when I was a young child up through elementary school, my parents slapped, spanked, ect. (I was 4ft. something tall <100lbs or so, obviously with a highly underdeveloped brain still). Now, by the time that I was 13 years old I was the physically strongest person in the house (@13 about 5'10 150lbs, played sports, ect.), at 17 onward I was close to my current young-adult form 6'2-3" 210-240+ lbs (i.e. a very big, athletic, physically imposing figure). Now, if my parents (and you) are correct and physical violence, pain, ect. is a legitimate form of discipline, then why didn't they ever apply this from the time I was 13 onward? Why haven't they offered themselves up to this discipline when they f'cked up badly/misbehave (as they frequently have)? Could it be because I entered a higher state of maturity when puberty hit and was no longer as vulnerable as I used to be and could potentially fight back against such treatment (i.e. tell on them to others, physically stop them, ect.). Funny how things always work out that way when the power dynamics shift.. The parents are only concerned about saving their own asses and rationalizing/justifying their out-of-line behavior while also claiming you (the child) deserved it, but we (the adults/parents) don't even when we commit similar or even far, far worse offenses
You responded with I overwhelmingly agree with Nomenclature on this issue (although don't agree with the "name-calling" he has applied).
to Nomenclature's comment (to marcusmoon): These are exactly the sorts of people who were probably abused as kids, you sophist halfwit.
There is no evidence for Nom's speculation (as usual.) Even so, their behavior is more typical of spoiled, undisciplined,entitled juveniles than reactive sociopaths.
Obviously, your parents were more successful at teaching you manners and respect than were Nom's. Thank them for me if you can, please.
Now, you stated that your parents spanked, slapped, soaped, and hot sauced you as you were growing up. My first question is, when did this end?
The last such discipline I remember was probably around 7 or 8 years old, and by that time it was RARE. This is because of a few basic factors.
1 - My folks had clear and consistent requirements. I don't ever remember getting into trouble for doing anything I did not know before I did it would result in punishment. I also knew what the punishment would be.
- Cussing/lying was always soap or (later) hot sauce.
- Disrespectful speech to my mom ("mouthing off") was always an immediate slap on the mouth.
- Creating any kind of public disturbance of any degree was the question, "do we need to go to the restroom?" which meant a spanking. It was VERY rare that we did not immediately start behaving.
- Stealing, hitting, intentionally breaking something that belonged to someone else was always a spanking.
2 - They started very early with strict rules and punishments that gradually became more permissive. We were taught not to touch things without permission by 2 or 3 years old, primarily for safety, and secondarily as manners. As we exhibited developing good judgment, we were allowed increasing freedom.
3 - The strict discipline established very early a basic fear of consequences for doing wrong, and an absolute belief in my parents' authority. Long before puberty, we had internalized the disciplinary experience (if that makes sense) so following basic rules of polite society was more or less habit. This was backed up by trust in my parent's judgment and dedication to our well-being.
I hope I have made it plain that there is certainly more to good discipline than violence and unpleasant experiences. My main point in my other posts on this thread has simply been that it is plainly incorrect to assert that there is no valid place for spankings, hot sauce, fear and pain in loving and non-abusive discipline.
Obviously, your parents were more successful at teaching you manners and respect than were Nom's. Thank them for me if you can, please.
No. "Manners" I have picked up and apply run entirely contrary to the way my parents comport themselves in life (particularly my father, who is a bully).. They simply progressively lost power over me as I was maturing. I have rejected my parents lifestyle in nearly every respect. In fact, I'm being more generous to them than they deserve because of my inner mammalian instincts toward parent-child relationships while if they were another person's guardians/adults that I didn't know, then I would not be sympathetic in the same way
There is no evidence for Nom's speculation (as usual.) Even so, their behavior is more typical of spoiled, undisciplined,entitled juveniles than reactive sociopaths.
Nom's direct claim to the people mentioned aside, his larger point about childhood violence being linked to adult aggression violence has been highly demonstrated in humans as well as other mammals/animals. Furthermore, Neuroscience has performed brain scan studies that demonstrate long-term detrimental molding of the brain's architecture that occurs as a result of childhood violence as this is occurring during the most vulnerable years of a person's life (unless some other serious unfortunate incident occurs later in life).
The last such discipline I remember was probably around 7 or 8 years old, and by that time it was RARE
Right, so Elementary school. Very similar to my experience (although I never got "Hot Sauced" or "Soaped"). Now, I imagine yelling, threats, and such were tactics employed (I know that my parents operated) including and after this age range?
Disrespectful speech to my mom ("mouthing off") was always an immediate slap on the mouth.
Has your mother or father ever spoken to you in disrespectful manner? If so, did you immediately slap them on the mouth?
The strict discipline established very early a basic fear of consequences for doing wrong, and an absolute belief in my parents' authority. Long before puberty, we had internalized the disciplinary experience (if that makes sense) so following basic rules of polite society was more or less habit. This was backed up by trust in my parent's judgment and dedication to our well-being.
Exactly. This is precisely what Nom. and I (and I dare say FactMachine) are so concerned/outraged by because "following basic rules of polite society" includes being conditioned to accept the Disney Channel Snow Globe of a World that the overwhelming majority of adults have tacitly agreed to live in together which can only happen if they subject each other, their children, the upcoming generations, ect. to a Perpetual Firehose of Bullshit (I have talked about this elsewhere on CD, I can link you to if you don't know what I'm driving at here, and could expand upon this). This is one of the biggest problems on Earth at the moment.
I hope I have made it plain that there is certainly more to good discipline than violence and unpleasant experiences. My main point in my other posts on this thread has simply been that it is plainly incorrect to assert that there is no valid place for spankings, hot sauce, fear and pain in loving and non-abusive discipline.
I have said elsewhere on CD that I am in no way a Pacifist and view their to be proper uses of Force. However, the overwhelming majority of cases that parents face when raising a child are so highly predictable behavior for an undeveloped mind to partake in and in most cases are innocuous infractions, as to not merit such behavior from the parent/guardians adults at all. In fact, if I saw a grown man or woman slap their 3ft.-something child hard in the face, this would be a perfect example of when I think an argument for force against the parent/adult could be made in order to restrain the adult and get to the bottom of what is going on in that relationship dynamic (on a more regular basis) as the child has zero way of defending itself. The varying degrees of force is an important notion as well.
Now, I never said that if a 4 year old is about to run into oncoming traffic that the parent shouldn't be allowed to yank their arm back into the sidewalk (of course they should). What I have stated is that the moral principles that the adults operate by toward children should be applied universally. The problem is, my Mom for instance may like to play by those rules unidirectionaly when I'm 4ft tall and slap me hard across the face to get me to "shut up", however she does not want the me (the kid) to ever smack her back when she just wont "shut up" and if she wants to stop it she could (since she was much bigger than me at the time). The parents are blatant hypocrites. Mommy and Daddy do not know what is best in the large majority of matters concerning life topics/issues... The overwhelming majority of Mommies and Daddies on Planet Earth are absolutely clueless, under-educated (by choice, and I'm referring to basic education, nothing advanced/comples, misinformed, unintelligent (nothing advanced, just what we should expect of developed Adult Homo Sapiens), unreasonable, immoral (on basic moral matters, nothing complex), confused, lost, emotionally unbalanced, ect. ect. and are not a model for anything aside from exactly how not to live (and perhaps I'm being too nice).. Also, this is due to the simple fact that this is how the vast majority of the Human Species are.
Note: I'm in no way attempting to denigrate all parents, it is just a numbers game, and we really have to discard the notion that our species is mostly good and therefore Mommy/Daddy just want what's best for the kids.. Therefore, if Mommy/Daddy was intentionally violent towards the kids and/or thoroughly sprayed them with The Perpetual Firehose of Bullshit in their most formative years which negatively effected their brain development for the entirety of the child's life (again, this is known to be true as a matter of Neuroscience--I can link you to it if you don't cant find it on your own), then this is somehow "out of Love" toward the child(?)..
I should add (because I think it may get lost here), people are Apes not Angels. I don't think that such "majority parents/adults" that I discussed are completely awful, horrible people. Rather, their poor qualities outweigh their good qualities (though importantly, there are good qualities). As Apes, we have all kinds of negative impulses and the Rule by Force is one of them.. We should use our higher cognitive capacities to overthrow many of our Mammalian instincts toward parenting and such (as we already have in some respects, just keep pushing it further)
I both agree and disagree with this post and your previous one.
As Apes, we have all kinds of negative impulses and the Rule by Force is one of them.
Be realistic.
Rule by force is the foundation of all power, and this is not automatically a negative thing. Whether it is positive or negative depends on purpose, degree, discernment, and restraint. Ensuring justice and the common good is dependent on rule by force.
I don't think that such "majority parents/adults" that I discussed are completely awful, horrible people. Rather, their poor qualities outweigh their good qualities (though importantly, there are good qualities).
Yep.
The vast majority of people are people of good will, but most folks do not have genes that are worthy to be passed on. The primary reason the planet is so egregiously overpopulated is that our good intentions have moved us pointedly to circumvent natural selection.
Consider that most pregnancies are unplanned/unintended. This indicates that the people most likely to reproduce are either unclear on how cause and effect work in procreation, or they are careless.
That means that most parents are parents precisely because the are stupid or careless.
Find an adoption agency that would purposefully give preference to prospective parents who have a history of idiocy and negligence.
No it isn't. Controlling the information a person receives is now the foundation of power in all developed countries. Force is used purely as a last resort.
A good example of controlling the information people receive is by having conversations with your own alt accounts.
In fact, if I saw a grown man or woman slap their 3ft.-something child hard in the face, this would be a perfect example of when I think an argument for force against the parent/adult could be made in order to restrain the adult and get to the bottom of what is going on in that relationship dynamic (on a more regular basis) as the child has zero way of defending itself.
Did you read my post on this thread regarding Child Protective Services (CPS) ?
Now, I imagine yelling, threats, and such were tactics employed (I know that my parents operated) including and after this age range?
Not really. Very rarely were we even grounded. Most of it was the question, "Is that how we behave?" and a reminder (in different words) of why it is important not to be assholes.
Our behavior was pretty much set by 7 or 8.
We did know what the range of possible consequences were, and underneath I had a baseline fear of doing wrong in the same way I have a baseline fear of running across a freeway. Nobody ever has to talk about it, but it is still useful that it is there.
Has your mother or father ever spoken to you in disrespectful manner? If so, did you immediately slap them on the mouth?
Nom indicated that he has the same kind of confusion about the nature of relationships.
Have either of you ever heard of filial piety? It is a Confucian concept that includes the understanding that people's positions in relationships are not interchangeable/reversible, nor do two people in a relationship have equal or identical responsibilities to each other.
This is precisely what Nom. and I (and I dare say FactMachine) are so concerned/outraged by because "following basic rules of polite society" includes being conditioned to accept the Disney Channel Snow Globe of a World...to a Perpetual Firehose of Bullshit
Not necessarily. The basic rules are not bullshit at all.
- Don't take it if it is not yours.
- Don't touch or mess with things that are not yours without permission.
- Don't make a mess if you can help it, but when you do, clean it up right away.
- Don't lie.
- Don't be rude. Getting along with people is hard enough, so don't throw a wrench into the works.
- You are never the most important person in the room, so take the needs and attitudes of other people into account. (NOBODY is ever the most important.)
- Earn what you want. NOBODY, not even you, DESERVES to get anything for free.
- It is good to be kind to others, and give them some of YOUR things to people who need them.
- Pay your debts.
- Hold yourself accountable for your responsibilities.
- Hold others accountable for their responsibilities.
- Keep your hands to yourself. Don't hurt other people (with obvious exceptions for law enforcement and parents enforcing these rules.)
Seriously, which of these rules do you think is a bad idea? Which qualify as bullshit?
Did you read my post on this thread regarding Child Protective Services (CPS) ?
I hadn't read it previously, I just did though
Not really. Very rarely were we even grounded. Most of it was the question, "Is that how we behave?" and a reminder (in different words) of why it is important not to be assholes.
Our behavior was pretty much set by 7 or 8.
Yelling and threats were a "staple" of my parents "parenting" tactics up through high school and beyond, even when I was doing absolutely nothing wrong, I was simply disagreeing/challenging their ignorant/stupid views of life and the world (functional people and dysfunctional people do not get along at all, and dysfunctional people are constantly highly insecure around and resentful of functional people).
Nom indicated that he has the same kind of confusion about the nature of relationships
Its not a confusion... The simple fact is that parents are indoctrinating their children into ridiculous, nonsensical bullsh't, by force or threat of force that in many cases we know is not true. Moreover, this type of violence during your most vulnerable years has been strongly, decisively demonstrated to be absolutely destructive to a developing human brain. Neuroscience bares this out conclusively. I can only conclude that you have no idea what I am talking about when I reference to the Neuroscience and how brain development is permanently damaged (in very non-trivial ways) as a result of violence in childhood (because if you were forced to see brain scans of what it has done to you compared to a brain that wasn't treated in such a way (what you would have been-should have been) you would be absolutely jaw-dropped shocked). Also, receiving mass misinformation for the entirety of your childhood has profound permanent negative impacts on the brains molding and architecture (i.e. the Perpetual Firehose of Bullshit is a tremendous issue in-it-of-itself). You seem to think just because people are still going about living their lives who have went through childhood violence (which is most people) that they are more-or-less healthy as if it didn't happen, and we know that this is not true. Science doesn't always paint a rosy picture.. What one can do (and is essentially their only rational option) is to "work with what they have" and progress as much as possible still. Luckily, the brain is highly Neuroplastic and is very able to "work with what it's got" and still function to high degrees. However, to get this confused and state that child violence and such should be the normative route is demonstrably wrong..... (we know that it produces humans with lower cognitive capacities than they otherwise would have)
Please consider watching Stefan Molyneux discuss violence against children (he discusses this often) as well as looking into the Neuroscience of it (I can link you to a number of sources if you don't know where to start).
- Hold yourself accountable for your responsibilities.
- Hold others accountable for their responsibilities
- Keep your hands to yourself. Don't hurt other people (with obvious exceptions for law enforcement and parents enforcing these rules.)
Some of the items on your list were so ironic.
So:
A. Your parents permanently damaging your brain while you were in no position to understand that or defend yourself from it is "responsible"?? (What?)
B. Your parents withholding the true known facts and history of the World/Human species/Universe/ect. and implanting an alternative reality that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the real world due to their own cowardice, ignorance, and stupidity is responsible?? (What?)
C. Your parents practicing a "moral code" on you that they would never agree to in return is holding themselves responsible for their actions?
Look at all the bastards in the news for sexual harassment and assault (Weinstein, Franken, Conyers, Clinton, O'Reily, Cosby, etc., ad nauseum) and ask yourself if a stern talking to would change their behavior.
These are exactly the sorts of people who were probably abused as kids, you sophist halfwit.
You ran away from the last debate because I was "misrepresenting your argument" while you literally misrepresented my argument as you complained about me misrepresenting your argument.
The funny thing to me is, when I was a kid I probably would have messed up on purpose to get hot sauced. What if the kid likes hot sauce? Now you've got positive reinforcement for bad behavior.
Sometimes things go on for reasons we can't understand. Like for instance, a camera crew waiting to ambush you when you respond to what is going on.
Or a million excuses to ignore what was happening and try not to laugh. Seriously? Pour hot sauce down a kids throat? Hell, I've won beers for drinking hot sauce.
All of a sudden I feel hardcore. Hot sauce builds character! Quit complaining little Jimmy, it puts hair on your chest!
I worked as a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator in Texas, so my reaction to the video is in the context of how law tends to interact with a broad range of discipline/parenting styles and methods, and what that means in terms of real life family dynamics.
Texas Law (Title 5 section 261.001), like that of at least 27 states (to my knowledge) regarding child abuse sets the bar for abuse at damage, actual or potential, to the child.
Reality 1: To qualify as mental/emotional abuse, it has to result in “observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning.”
Observation 1: The video shows nothing to indicate that any of what the “Mom” does is observably impairing the kid’s ability to develop or function. Sure, “mom” is impatient, intolerant of error, and a total bitch, but that does not make this abuse, just unpleasant and unhappy. Being unhappy (distinct from diagnosed depression) or even being afraid is not an impairment.
Reality 2: To qualify as physical abuse, it has to be “physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child.” Pain and unpleasantness is not a factor. This is largely because pain and discomfort (whether emotional or physical) is a definitional requirement for punishment.
Observation 2: The “mom” does nothing in the video that can physically harm the child. Hot sauce is a food, and as such is being used appropriately. (She is not putting it in the kid’s eyes.) The kid is clearly old enough to swallow the stuff safely. Under age 4 or 5 would approach a grey area. In a toddler or baby it would be abuse.
In fact, the hot sauce poses significantly less danger to the kid than were “mom” to slap his face or spank him. (Spanking the butt or backs of the legs also fails to qualify as abuse, even if done with a belt or rope, so long as there is no bruising or breaking the skin.)
Reality 3: Parents and legal guardians are the people who have the legal responsibility for training and discipline. When parents neglect this responsibility, society suffers under the weight of the resulting useless and entitled weaklings, unethical and selfish bastards, and criminals. Likewise parents are the ones who have to figure out how to train their kids not to be irresponsible, useless, or hazards as adults.
Observation 3: The fact that we and the bystanders/interveners in the video dislike the mother’s method of discipline, or that we are emotionally impacted has nothing to do with whether “mom’s” behavior is abusive or in any way inappropriate (except that she makes the other customers deal with it. Polite parents are more discreet in public.)
The fact that her “son” totally hates it is a requirement for it to qualify as discipline. She is using the basics of operant conditioning (clumsily and emotionally) in a totally safe way. The fact that we want her to cut the kid some slack because “he is just a kid” ignores the requirement that parents are the ones who must set and enforce the standards for their kid’s behavior.
Well-meaning and soft-hearted strangers undermining that is not helping to ensure the "parent" produces a person who contributes to the good of society.
I did NOT watch your video.. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to youtube.. I'm here to debate REAL LIVE humans. Toward that end, if I saw a person abusing a child, I'd INTERVENE, and I'd intervene LOUDLY..
I did NOT watch your video.. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to youtube.. I'm here to debate REAL LIVE humans. Toward that end, if I saw a person abusing a child, I'd INTERVENE, and I'd intervene LOUDLY
The point is that these are common social issues encountered in "daily" life that people have varying perspectives on..
If you didn't want to get the proper context to discuss the issue, then why post here (this debate) at all? You already made a trivially glaring error on a previous debate because you didn't watch the short video and therefore made the unfounded accusation that I am against gay adoption (which you just pulled out of the ether) based on your (mis)interpretation of the Debate Title..
You referenced your post specifically to me, then stated that you didn't watch the video because "I don't care who's on the video.. I can't debate HIM.. I CAN debate you however..." and then went on to state that you for one love gay adoption; implying there is a clear difference of opinion between me, the debate creator posing the question, and you worthy of debate.
In another debate, you specifically referenced "YOU" after formally addressing your post to me, so yes, I took/take that to mean you are referring to me (xMathFanx). Why would you not say "ANYONE" (or something along those lines) if you were not attempting to refer to me specifically?