Non-IT News Thread
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
They are deciding the consequence. The cell phone at the table example: The consequence is either, not using the cell now or you can use it now and not use it for an entire day.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
And even worst, it's definitely a risk reward setup... you can keep texting (but we don't know for how long) and the phone will be removed for x period of time... is it worth the risk? yep so keep texting.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
They are deciding the consequence. The cell phone at the table example: The consequence is either, not using the cell now or you can use it now and not use it for an entire day.
So you catch them using a cell phone that they weren't allowed to use. What is the punishment that they decided on in that case?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
They are deciding the consequence. The cell phone at the table example: The consequence is either, not using the cell now or you can use it now and not use it for an entire day.
So you catch them using a cell phone that they weren't allowed to use. What is the punishment that they decided on in that case?
Right - the discovered after the fact situation..
which is more often than not. -
You know if parents were allowed to beat their kids without assholes getting involved Steam wouldn't be down right now...
#beatyourkids
#teachconsequences -
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
And even worst, it's definitely a risk reward setup... you can keep texting (but we don't know for how long) and the phone will be removed for x period of time... is it worth the risk? yep so keep texting.
The idea "normally" is to increase punishment for doing something bad until it's not worth doing anymore. Bullying a kid at school? First punishment doesn't stop them, you turn it up. And you keep turning it up until they stop, period. Hurting people should never have a "cost" that you are willing to just pay to have fun hurting other people.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
They are deciding the consequence. The cell phone at the table example: The consequence is either, not using the cell now or you can use it now and not use it for an entire day.
So you catch them using a cell phone that they weren't allowed to use. What is the punishment that they decided on in that case?
Right - the discovered after the fact situation..
which is more often than not.Right, the idea of a punishment is for breaking rules. What is being described is something different - he's MAKING rules, not dealing with broken ones. He's assume that no rules will ever be broken. That's the flaw.
What happens when the kid decides to use the cell phone now instead of later and THEN uses it later TOO? That's when the rule is broken, not when the option was given.
You would never tell a kid "well, you can steal candy from the store, but if you do you'll have to do the dishes tonight." You want to teach that you NEVER steal, not that you steal when you feel it sounds fun enough to make up for having to do the dishes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
They are deciding the consequence. The cell phone at the table example: The consequence is either, not using the cell now or you can use it now and not use it for an entire day.
So you catch them using a cell phone that they weren't allowed to use. What is the punishment that they decided on in that case?
Do your daughters always follow every rule you put in place? If you say no phones during dinner they don't challenge you and say its not dinner yet there is no food on the table? That is the example where a dialogue would start in which they make a decision.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Spanking is nothing but a risk reward payoff situation.
My parents both spanked the three of us. The last beating I received was at 16. I literally stood there while he hit me with a belt until he swung to low and hit my leg, causing enough pain to involuntarily take a half step forward, yelp, then I was standing up straight again.
It was clear in the end, that he was wiping me until he got some satisfaction, after I yelped, he stopped. I'm sure he realized that beatings/spankings/whatever were worthless at that point.
I'll agree with @scottalanmiller that this was a situation where his anger was out of control. Luckily spankings were a fairly rare thing in my house, I think I got 5 or 6 total while growing up, two of them were pretty savage, luckily neither was ever repeated, and both would be considered child abuse today.
Yup, once you spank, the kid is in power. It's a transfer of power from the adult to the child. It's resorting to physical means when mental isn't working.
I didn't really get spanked at home, but was spanked at school continuously by people that I now realize should be executed (I literally mean that.)
How isn't all punishment a transfer - if one is to agree with you.
It's all about the risk reward setup. Sure, as a very young child, a spanking MIGHT give a longer lasting impression to change behavior, but once you realize that's what the goal of a spanking is, then it's all the same - what's the difference between spanking versus taking the computer away - just risk reward.
To some degree that is true, but you rarely send a kid to a five minute time out or take away something that they have abused it's rarely a direct loss of control or violence. Violence is a different thing completely. Now if you are spanking a kid because he had inflicted violence on someone else and did so after a cooling down period so that the spanking is done as a planned punishment rather than a direct violent response to anger, sure.
I still wouldn't agree with that. I think that would more than likely teach an eye for an eye mentality to the child.
LOL, then how is taking away some privilege any different?
If your child hits another kid are you going to hit your child? That's an eye for an eye. If they hit someone elses child and then you dont let them watch tv its just a consequence of their actions.
What makes an eye for an eye bad, in that situation?
I don't want to tell my child that what they did was wrong and then do the same thing to them.
Interesting, but that rules out ANY punishment, right? All punishments are wrong if not punishments, right?
The common way of describing it is a punishment but to me it's a consequence. I would give them a choice between two outcomes like I stated above. That way if they want to continue doing what they are doing they can, but there will be a consequence.
All punishment is a consequence. You are making it more like "it's not wrong, it just has a cost." Your way, to me, feels like it is trying to remove the idea of right and wrong but simply attaching a cost to bad behaviour. Want to beat your cousin? $10. Want to stay up late without permission, $1. Want to open your presents early when you find them in the closet, $5.
The idea with a punishment is that we are trying to show that something was wrong. Not that actions have prices that might be worth paying.
Your way makes bullying a kid at school a transaction, just like buying French Fries at McDonald's. The cost of the fries is a consequence of placing the order, but not a punishment.
It's more about holding the child responsible for their own decisions instead of just attempting to prevent them from doing wrong--which is impossible ultimately.
But wouldn't an eye for an eye make more sense for your goals, then?
No because I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves. I want to give them the opportunity to be self-governing. I won't be around forever.
How do you make it "punishing themselves"? You still have to be there to punish them. You are making it a cost, and a cost that only gets paid if you catch them.
And even worst, it's definitely a risk reward setup... you can keep texting (but we don't know for how long) and the phone will be removed for x period of time... is it worth the risk? yep so keep texting.
The idea "normally" is to increase punishment for doing something bad until it's not worth doing anymore. Bullying a kid at school? First punishment doesn't stop them, you turn it up. And you keep turning it up until they stop, period. Hurting people should never have a "cost" that you are willing to just pay to have fun hurting other people.
The few situations like this that I've been aware of, there was nothing left to punish the kids with, they already had nearly nothing, mostly because the family was dirt poor, and the family wasn't around (because working) to say, force them to stay in a basically empty bedroom all day - not really sure what more you could do? Get the state involved? Sadly I hear those programs don't exist or don't have funding to handle the load.
-
It's all worthless anyway. I don't have kids. Everyone thinks they know what they are going to do and how they are going to be until they actually have them. That's why it scares me.
-
The punishment should fit the "crime"... but it should also fit the child. We never really had to spank Ethan. He does it to himself if we raise our voices at him, lol. But he understand when we tell him not to do something we mean it, and we'll get onto him if he keeps on... Or we'll let him learn his lesson if it won't seriously injure him. (Hot pot is hot!)
I got spanked when I was a kid too, and my mom (never Dad, but that is a different story) would always explain to me why I was being spanked. [Most of the time I knew anyway, lol].
I find myself doing the same thing to Ethan. I make sure he understand why we are upset and why we are punishing him. He gets it. The next time we have to get after him, we'll likely let him choose his own punishment.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
I find myself doing the same thing to Ethan. I make sure he understand why we are upset and why we are punishing him. He gets it. The next time we have to get after him, we'll likely let him choose his own punishment.
Chose his own punishment, of what choices?
No ice cream after dinner or No TV time before bed?
-
I'm all for properly punishing your children, but allowing them to pick the punishment is a lot like a murderer being caught and then choosing a 25 year stay in the Bahamas as punishment...
Because the Judge didn't want to be mean, and felt that the murderer could chose something fitting.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
I find myself doing the same thing to Ethan. I make sure he understand why we are upset and why we are punishing him. He gets it. The next time we have to get after him, we'll likely let him choose his own punishment.
Chose his own punishment, of what choices?
No ice cream after dinner or No TV time before bed?
Those are mighty close, lol. No cookies after dinner or no Minecraft until the next day.
Then once he wisens up a little bit, we will have to adjust things accordingly, lol.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm all for properly punishing your children, but allowing them to pick the punishment is a lot like a murderer being caught and then choosing a 25 year stay in the Bahamas as punishment...
Because the Judge didn't want to be mean, and felt that the murderer could chose something fitting.
You make the punishments "equally" deterring.
Give him 25 years hard labor in the desert prisons, or 25 years at Club Fed stuck wearing Hello Kitty prison wear. -
Carrie Fisher: Star Wars actress 'suffers heart attack'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38423963 -
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Carrie Fisher: Star Wars actress 'suffers heart attack'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38423963Just read this before. She seems like a really down to earth person. Hope she turns out okay
-
@wirestyle22 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Carrie Fisher: Star Wars actress 'suffers heart attack'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38423963Just read this before. She seems like a really down to earth person. Hope she turns out okay
I've met her close to a dozen times.. other than the very first time (she was totally wasted/hangover) at SDCC 2006, she was totally cool. She really likes what the 501st did for charities, etc.
-
Latest scuttlebutt from Twitter is that she has stabilized.
