hot sauce/cold shower = child abuse?

[Guest American Woman]

You're missing an important point.

I've had sex with women and it has been quite a romantic experience.

If I had sex with them against their will it's rape.

Creative writing is quite fulfilling but having to write "I will not steal and tell a lie," having to be in good writing, is punishment - not the child's "will." By the same token, if you took my iPod from me it would be stealing, but if a parent took their child's iPod away from them as a form of punishment, it would not be stealing.

The fact that it's against the child's will does not make it child abuse. As has been pointed out, any punishment is against the child's will.

You chose to take those cold showers and take that polar dip in lake superior. There's a marked difference between doing something willingly and being forced against your will to strip down naked and get into a frigid shower and to have hot sauce forced down your throat. It's a violation of your body and your free will.

Again. Any punishment is a violation of a child's body (you think a spanking isn't?) and against their free will. Children don't have "free will." And yes, while it was my choice to take those cold showers and swim in Lake Superior, that doesn't lessen the "danger of hypothermia" from such actions, and I was clearly giving those examples to debunk the "danger" involved in taking a cold shower.

It's abuse and it's unnecessary. These types of punishments do nothing but relieve the frustration of the punisher by dehumanizing the punished.

Is it unnecessary? The same punishment doesn't work for every child. If something isn't working, should the parent say 'oh well, I've tried' and let the child misbehave (which isn't doing the child any favors at all) - or should the parent try other forms of punishment? What about tough love?

As I've said, spanking is accepted in large part because we've been desensitized to it. Same as putting soap in a child's mouth - I doubt the mother would have been charged with child abuse for that. And I don't think she should have. But is it any less wrong?

[betsy]

It is the younger generation of parents who seem to be having a tough time with discipline.

I guess it's safe to say that mostly everyone from the "older generation" have been spanked by one or both parents. Yet I fail to see an overwhelming amount of psychos or dysfunctional people as a result of that. Instead, we've had firmly grounded, responsible adults from that era.

In fact, it's practically the opposite now. Since society started listening to people like Dr Spock....and tampered with parental rights....and changed things around.....what we see is a deterioration of the succeeding generation.

And it will get worse as new generation comes. We learn parenting from our own experiences with our parents. If the younger generation of parents don't know how....how will the new ones learn?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The fact that it's against the child's will does not make it child abuse. As has been pointed out, any punishment is against the child's will.

As I've said, spanking is accepted in large part because we've been desensitized to it. Same as putting soap in a child's mouth - I doubt the mother would have been charged with child abuse for that. And I don't think she should have. But is it any less wrong?

What you say is meaningless until you put some hotsauce in your mouth and let us know how it goes!

[Bonam]

Children don't have "free will."

Er... what? Of course they have free will.

[Guest American Woman]

Er... what? Of course they have free will.

They determine whether they go to school or not? - whether they do their homework or not? Or whether they are punished or not? They determine their bedtimes, what they eat for breakfast or lunch? They can spend their money as they please - sign a contract? They aren't under the control of a parent/guardian?

[Bonam]

They determine whether they go to school or not? - whether they do their homework or not? Or whether they are punished or not? They determine their bedtimes, what they eat for breakfast or lunch? They can spend their money as they please - sign a contract? They aren't under the control of a parent/guardian?

Whether and to what extent they are allowed to exercise their free will is completely independent from the issue of whether they have free will.

[Guest American Woman]

Whether and to what extent they are allowed to exercise their free will is completely independent from the issue of whether they have free will.

If it's not "allowed" I hardly think it's "having free will." If one isn't "allowed" freedom of speech, to my way of thinking, they don't have freedom of speech.

[Bonam]

If it's not "allowed" I hardly think it's "having free will." If one isn't "allowed" freedom of speech, to my way of thinking, they don't have freedom of speech.

Ok, so a slave doesn't have free will, because their master controls them? I guess it's fine then, they don't have free will anyway, so they obviously are incapable of having the desire to be free. Your argument is patently ridiculous.

Btw I don't know what kind of parents you had, but as a kid I certainly was able to exercise my free will on a lot of things.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

Ok, so a slave doesn't have free will, because their master controls them? I guess it's fine then, they don't have free will anyway, so they obviously are incapable of having the desire to be free. Your argument is patently ridiculous.

Btw I don't know what kind of parents you had, but as a kid I certainly was able to exercise my free will on a lot of things.

Just because I see "having free will" differently than you do doesn't mean the way I see it is "ridiculous." I don't think slaves had "free will" because they weren't able to exercise it. If you see it differently, so be it. It's like I said - if one isn't allowed freedom of speech, they don't have freedom of speech - whether they "desire" it or not.

My parents were great, but I certainly was not allowed to exercise free will. Evidently you weren't either. So you were able to "on a lot of things" - yet if someone in a communist country is able to exercise free speech "on a lot of things" but not regarding the government, do they have freedom of speech? In my eyes they don't. If you see it differently, so be it - but it doesn't make my viewpoint "ridiculous."

[Bonam]

Just because I see "having free will" differently than you do doesn't mean the way I see it is "ridiculous." I don't think slaves had "free will" because they weren't able to exercise it. If you see it differently, so be it. It's like I said - if one isn't allowed freedom of speech, they don't have freedom of speech - whether they "desire" it or not.

My parents were great, but I certainly was not allowed to exercise free will. Evidently you weren't either. So you were able to "on a lot of things" - yet if someone in a communist country is able to exercise free speech "on a lot of things" but not regarding the government, do they have freedom of speech? In my eyes they don't. If you see it differently, so be it - but it doesn't make my viewpoint "ridiculous."

Ok so adults don't have free will either then by that definition. There are plenty of things you aren't allowed to do (by your government). I guess free will must be a phantom concept then, since no one has it.

Freedom of speech and free will are different things. The first is a right that a person may or may not have in society. The second is an innate psychological capability, either one is capable of willing something, or one is not.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok so adults don't have free will either then by that definition. There are plenty of things you aren't allowed to do (by your government). I guess free will must be a phantom concept then, since no one has it.

We all are allowed to do, or not do, the same things by our government. What we are allowed to do, or not do, as children is dependent on our parents. Children are "dependents" and as such their actions are dictated/controlled by their parents. I'm not referring to illegal acts, which is a whole different set of things all kids aren't allowed to do either. Again, if you see it differently, so be it. Doesn't make my viewpoint any more "ridiculous" than your idea that slaves have free will. Again, if it can't be exercised, I don't see it as existing for that person.

Freedom of speech and free will are different things. The first is a right that a person may or may not have in society. The second is an innate psychological capability, either one is capable of willing something, or one is not.

That's the way you see it. I don't. I don't see one's actions being controlled/determined by another as being able to exercise free will. I think we reach that state when we are no longer under the influence/control of a parent/guardian.

Edited August 27, 2011 by American Woman

[Bonam]

I don't see one's actions being controlled/determined by another as being able to exercise free will.

That's what I said before. I agree that people can be prevented from exercising their free will. It does not mean they do not have free will. That is all I will say on this topic, as you believe it is a semantic argument while not realizing the monstrosity of denying the recognition of the cognitive faculty of free will to whole classes of individuals. Carry on.

[Guest American Woman]

That's what I said before. I agree that people can be prevented from exercising their free will. It does not mean they do not have free will. That is all I will say on this topic, as you believe it is a semantic argument while not realizing the monstrosity of denying the recognition of the cognitive faculty of free will to whole classes of individuals. Carry on.

[cybercoma]

When I was talking about the child's will, it followed my statement about the child's body being violated. What I meant by the child's free will is that they have liberty over their own body, they ought to have free will over what can be done to their body. If a child doesn't want to have hot-sauce forced down his/her throat, then he/she shouldn't be subjected to that. If a child does not want be subjected to an ice-cold shower, then he/she shouldn't be subjected to that. Violating the child's security of their body is abuse and a gross infringement on that child's rights. You have every right not to allow a child to restrict a child's privileges as a punishment. You do not have a right to inflict punishments that violate a child's body and his/her free will over their body.

Now before someone says, a child does not have free will over their body because you wouldn't allow a child to get a tattoo or piercings, etc. The point is that you are not free to inflict your will upon a child's body. You're not entitled to violate a child's body to punish them. A a guardian, however, you have a right to restrict a child from engaging in things that you feel may be harmful to their bodies (ie. drinking, doing drugs, having sex, getting tattoos and piercings, etc).

[MiddleClassCentrist]

American Woman:

1) How was the hot sauce? did it feel like an appropriate punishment for children under 14? 8?

2) What form of punishment causing pain is acceptable, in your view, to inflict on a child?

Edited August 29, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[jbg]

The mother faces up to a year in jail.

Thoughts?

Perfect example of the State weakening the ability of parents to discipline. And people wonder why bullying is a problem?

[betsy]

Perfect example of the State weakening the ability of parents to discipline. And people wonder why bullying is a problem?

Bullying is just part of it. One has only to see the stat of youth crimes. In a way it is true what UK PM said, that we have deterioration of morality.

We're having parents who can no longer take full responsibility. So much for the "it takes a village to raise a child" bs.

You can only go so far in interfering - because that's what exactly it is, interfering - then the whole thing becomes a, "there's too many cooks in the kitchen" brouhaha.

Everyone knows better!

That is naturally the result of the state/busybodies tampering with the natural instinct of parents to discipline!

Edited September 2, 2011 by betsy

[jbg]

Bullying is just part of it. **** - then the whole thing becomes a, "there's too many cooks in the kitchen" brouhaha.

Everyone knows better!

That is naturally the result of the state/busybodies tampering with the natural instinct of parents to discipline!

The reason I singled out bullying is as follows. Sometime in June 2009 I sat my older son down on the stairs and gave him a stern lecture about bullying after he picked on his little brother. Months later the school psychologist, out of nowhere, asked my older son if "his parents had ever done anything to scare him". He mentioned that episode from months earlier and that night, we received an emergency visit from Child Welfare, which launched into a 6 week long "investigation".

No child wsa protected from abuse by this ridiculous assault on my family's integrity and privacy.

[Argus]

You chose to take those cold showers and take that polar dip in lake superior. There's a marked difference between doing something willingly and being forced against your will to strip down naked and get into a frigid shower and to have hot sauce forced down your throat. It's a violation of your body and your free will.

Well, YOU chose to go to school. My parents MADE me! I hated it! I was abused, then!

[Argus]

Of course I see the difference between the actions. What I don't see a difference between is the applicability of your argument, which I quoted, to those actions. Your argument stated that the ice-cold shower or hot sauce are morally wrong as punishments because they violate the child's freedom[

Unless the mother actually put ice cubes into the intake pipe I think we can cease calling it an 'ice cold' shower. It was, rather, the water which flows through city pipes unchilled, and thus is unlikely to cause immediate hypothermia...

And don't people eat hot sauce voluntarily?

[Argus]

Now before someone says, a child does not have free will over their body because you wouldn't allow a child to get a tattoo or piercings, etc. The point is that you are not free to inflict your will upon a child's body. You're not entitled to violate a child's body to punish them. A a guardian, however, you have a right to restrict a child from engaging in things that you feel may be harmful to their bodies (ie. drinking, doing drugs, having sex, getting tattoos and piercings, etc).

Children are individuals, and as such react differently to different types of punishment. Some are discipline problems, for a variety of reasons. I was talking to one mother about her 4 year old the other day. She has trouble giving him time-outs. She tells him to go to his room and he says "NO!". She has to physically pick him up and carry him to his room, whereupon, when he's set down, he opens the door and comes out again. I've witnessed a couple of this kid's temper tantrums, and he's largely uncontrollable during them. I'm talking about kicking and screaming and crying, because, among other reasons, he didn't want to go inside, or didn't want to go outside. She has been known to smack his butt, which he greets with "That didn't hurt!", and when her back is turned he'll sneak up on her, smack her butt, and run away.

God help them when this kids is ten, or worse, a teenager.

So what I'm saying is, restricting what can be used for punishment (aside from what causes harm), and trying to pretend children can be reasoned with is naive. Sometimes they simply cannot be reasoned with, because children don't really have fully functioning minds.

[Bonam]

Children are individuals, and as such react differently to different types of punishment. Some are discipline problems, for a variety of reasons. I was talking to one mother about her 4 year old the other day. She has trouble giving him time-outs. She tells him to go to his room and he says "NO!". She has to physically pick him up and carry him to his room, whereupon, when he's set down, he opens the door and comes out again. I've witnessed a couple of this kid's temper tantrums, and he's largely uncontrollable during them. I'm talking about kicking and screaming and crying, because, among other reasons, he didn't want to go inside, or didn't want to go outside. She has been known to smack his butt, which he greets with "That didn't hurt!", and when her back is turned he'll sneak up on her, smack her butt, and run away.

So what I'm saying is, restricting what can be used for punishment (aside from what causes harm), and trying to pretend children can be reasoned with is naive. Sometimes they simply cannot be reasoned with, because children don't really have fully functioning minds.

Actually I think they have more fully functioning minds than you'd like. As an adult, how would you take to someone telling you to go to your room and stay there, or smacking your butt? With meek compliance? I don't think so. Why would one expect a kid to behave differently? To an adult, it may seem the natural order of things for children to obey their parents. But to a kid, they have the same free will and sense of personal freedom as any other human, and will naturally rebel when someone attempts to control them, punish them, or restrict their movement against their will.

Man, every time I read these threads here, I can't help but conclude that everyone on this forum is so old they can't remember even a shred of living their childhood. They can't remember that they actually had thoughts when they were kids, that they could think, that they had desires and opinions.

[Guest American Woman]

Man, every time I read these threads here, I can't help but conclude that everyone on this forum is so old they can't remember even a shred of living their childhood. They can't remember that they actually had thoughts when they were kids, that they could think, that they had desires and opinions.

And what in God's name would make you think that??

Yes, kids desire things and they don't like parental guidance (all the time - sometimes they do - it gives them a sense of security), or punishment, but they are too young to know what's best for them and they have to be taught and they have to learn. Which is why kids live with their parents, rather than live on their own, renting an apartment, et al.

Seriously, when I read comments such as yours I can't help but conclude that you're so young you can't even begin to understand what raising kids involves.

Edited September 3, 2011 by American Woman

[Argus]

Actually I think they have more fully functioning minds than you'd like.

They don't. Especially not young kids. Even adolescents don't have fully formed minds and thinking processes.

intellectual development

[cybercoma]

Regardless, Argus, I don't believe you should be using tools against your child's body when executing punishments. And I don't buy your philosophy that they somehow deserve it or it's ok to physically assault a child because their minds aren't "fully functioning". If that's the case, then it would be ok to physically punish seniors with dementia or it would be perfectly ok to physically punish those with mental disabilities for no other reason than their minds aren't "fully functioning". If anything, that's more reason not to be physical with the person because they're not entirely capable of understanding their actions.