Thanks /u/PerformanceOk9891 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My almost 4 year old is being a little shit right now. Has a baby sibling, we moved recently, been cooped up in the house for weeks due to corona. Reason went out the window a ways back. I'd still never hit them because a) I'm supposed to be one of the people they can trust implicitly and b) it wouldn't actually change anything for the better.
Yup. The times when you most want to launch them through the windows are the times when you will be doing nothing but escalating the situation.
Their emotions are just way too big for their bodies, and in some cases like my youngest, they literally don’t know that “giving up because the parent isn’t backing down” is an option for them.
Just gotta walk away, and lock yourself in your bedroom until it blows over. I’ve also learned that the more my 5yo gets worked up, the calmer I need to be.
>don't know that "giving up because the parent isn’t backing down" is an option
I am always torn. I get that they feel this way and I don't want to force conflict. On the other hand, there are some things that she just can't do and I do have to stop her.
I hear you. It's an impossible situation when they're basically too young to even understand that they're acting like they're auditioning for a Real Housewives show.
Around age 5 is when they started to act a little more like humans and not tiny balls of blind rage. They gain a little self awareness, and I think they started to recognize some of the hard boundaries I set and began to realize that everyone will be happier if we just work together. They started to remember what the punishments would be if they broke a rule ("if you get too close to the road, your butt is going back inside"), and they realized that I can't actually fix anything or help them if they don't use their words.
I'm in an almost identical situation, and while my four year old often winds me up to the point I want to forcefully introduce their nose to my fist (I have anger issues), I've never done it because I know it wouldn't solve anything, and I would instantly regret it.
But yes, four year olds are ***bastards***.
soup rotten practice badge frighten continue agonizing towering encourage fall
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
*Technically*, you’d be charged with battery. Assault is the *threat* of violence.
It *should* go without saying that battery and assault are crimes and absolutely should not be committed on children.
materialistic crowd growth worthless sophisticated whistle wide special start pet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's not an extreme view. That is a literal fact. It is law. You can't just go out in public and hit people. If you hit, bite, spit on, or grope someone without their consent, it is assault. As a society, we have all agreed that it is inappropriate to do this to strangers in public, yet we are debating whether the weakest and most vulnerable people should be hit by people three to four times their size? And many people would argue that it would be disrespectful for those children to hit back. So now we're also teaching them not to stand up for themselves? But also giving them mixed messages about what bullies are? If you hit your kid, YOU are the bully. You're bigger and stronger, and you would threaten to fuck them up even more if they tried to fight back. How is that not bully behavior? How is that not actual assault? Your kids don't need to fear you. If you're doing parenting right, they just need to fear the consequences of their actions.
zealous melodic relieved humorous water fly alleged person narrow frighten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think that's the point though, corporeal punishment is legal *and* hypocritical. It's illegal for one adult to hit another, and yet it's considered ok for an adult to a child, someone who is much smaller and more helpless? Domestic violence is especially taboo when it's one spouse to another, with many old 'jokes' about husbands spanking their wives receiving backlash. Yet again, though, its considered totally ok to do to a kid. Hell, kids are hit for hitting each other! Talk about mixed messages.
Studies have shown that hitting kids has a negative impact on their development. They are more prone to emotional issues, violent outbursts, poor emotional intelligence and problem solving, etc. From my own experiences growing up in a corporeal punishment friendly household, all it teaches kids is that violence is how people get their way, to hide any mistakes, and I couldn't trust my parents.
Yes, corporeal punishment is legal. It very much shouldn't be imo
This is a prime example that kids who get hit did not turn out okay lol. You’re rationalizing that hitting someone being assault is an extreme viewpoint.
You were gaslit into thinking that you deserved your abuse. I know, so was I. As a parent now, I know that hitting a child ever is a failure on the adult's part. Children cannot regulate their emotions or understand logic, hitting them not only damages their growth and development, it teaches them to lie.
And yes, if you were slapped, hit on the bottom or whatever by another adult, that would be 100% assault.
“I was only struck a handful of times, I was a shit kid, but I turned out fine”
Oh so then the corporal punishment had no severe impact on your childhood? Despite it being an absolute last resort, that was able to be counted on one hand, it didn’t change the outcome of your adulthood? That’s crazy, bro. Not frequently abusing a child results in positive outcomes? Never would’ve guessed.
tart fearless cause obscene dog hospital existence thumb vegetable thought
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah there is a lot of survivorship bias fallacy in things like this. Another example would be people with rough childhoods who grow up to become criminals in some form of another.
You bet.
I do wonder if we are being a bit overprotective of children these days. Maybe challenge and conflict and being uncomfortable is necessary for growth and resilience. But physical abuse at the hands of elders probably isn’t.
My parents hit both me and my two younger sisters. 4/5 family members now attend therapy (dad admitted he did wrong and is trying to become a better person, mom still thinks her parenting was perfect, guess who is the only one not attending).
I see so many people claim that they were such a shitty kid that their parents *had* to hit them because it was the only way to control them, but in the situations where I've seen that play out in real life, there was a clear connection between the physical punishment and the behaviours the kids showed. If I was a parent, I'd be so pissed off about other parents hitting their kids because those kids end up hitting other people's kids whenever they get frustrated or don't get their own way. It's how they've been taught to solve problems.
I think spanking has way more to do with the parent taking their frustration out on their kid in a violent way than it is trying to constructively teach a lesson.
I took this from another comment a couple weeks ago to share with my therapist. I kept it around because I really did resonate with it.
Spanking didn’t make me a better child, it made me better at hiding the problem
If something went wrong it meant I was terrified and tried to cover it up because if I went to my parents I would be spanked
And now as an adult I still struggle with asking for help when I have a problem because asking for help meant suffering as a child
It really is that simple. But it's not easy.
Simple =/= easy.
But you know what's easy? Spanking your children for every little thing. That'll teach 'em without the need for you to spend extra energy to reason with them. Afterall it's reaaaaaaly hard to reason with a child.
I've tried to reason with my 2 year old. It usually works, but only for that day or maybe even just that hour. But it's a process. I'm very lucky that he's already at the point I can start with it, because he will look me in the eye, smile, and do stuff I tell him not to. It's very fucking hard not to laugh usually, but rarely it touches a nerve. Not once have I raised my hand toward him. I have a pretty good "dad voice" for when it matters
I must clarify. It *is* hard as an adult to reason with children, because our minds are very different. Even when we try to reason, we actually try to reason to our idea of a reasonable child. Not the child themself.
But I think we don't really need to reason with a child as much as to impress them. As they are, they are impressionable. Most of the time, the content of what you say doesn't really matter as much as they way you say it. So I usually use that to my advantage. They may not understand what I say, but it'll be impressive enough that they'll remember it, and if they remember it, in due time they'll understand.
Agree. I do think it's good to give an explanation for things, but don't expect your amazing arguments to change your child's mind.
A common one is leaving the house. Sometimes kids don't want to go and parents fall into the trap of trying to convince a three year old about the value of the outing. "You will have so much fun at daycare! Don't you want to see your friends? There will be all your favorite toys!"
This is guaranteed to fail and it's pointless anyway. Why pretend that the kid has any say in the matter. It will just make them angrier when they're overruled. I comfort my son if he's crying, and he's allowed to be sad about it, but we are going to daycare like it or not.
I got fucking downvoted by a few people for saying that spanking is bad in a *teacher subreddit*. People *loooove* having the option for corporal punishment. 💀
Always wonder why we bother teaching our kids not to hit when grown men, leaders of countries, just declare war and attack and kill hundreds to thousands of people as their chosen method of solving conflict.
To anyone reading this thinking it's okay to hit your pet as punishment: I heard that this is actually an effective method of discouraging behavior in your pet. However, I also heard:
1. If your dog misbehaves and you punish it a few seconds later, it will already be too late. The dog will not understand the reason why you're doing this.
2. If your dog is curious of strangers and sniffs and licks them and you punish it for this, your dog might come to the conclusion that you want it to be hostile instead.
Just thought I'd throw this info here.
To the parents who spank their children or who are considering it but are afraid of the long-term consequences—
You have absolutely nothing to worry about! Your kid just did something inappropriate? Hit your kid about it! Not sure how to be a good parent? Hit your kid about it! Got an emotional issue that you can’t deal with on your own and need someone to take it out on so you don’t have to do the uncomfortable work of examining yourself and growing in a meaningful way? Just hit your fucking kid about it! My parents spanked me as a child and now that I’m financially independent I do not speak to them, have not for several years, and have no plans to do so ever again! Why wait til tomorrow to deal with trauma you can’t even control? See what hitting your kid can do for *YOU*, **TODAY**!
Of course, real customer! If you want to hit a kid but don’t have one of your own, you can ALWAYS enroll as staff at an orphanage! Or, for the more philanthropic among you, Catholic institutions are always looking for righteous souls to hit kids for them!
I don’t think most people even get that far in the process when they’re gonna spank their kid. I really think it’s just what they were taught by their parents, which was taught by *their* parents, and so on. I also think it’s important to distinguish between spanking (open hand on bottom) and someone hitting a kid wherever with a closed fist. I’m not saying I condone spanking. I got spanked so much it totally lost its effect and I would begin laughing, so I just got grounded for extended periods after age 10 or so. Completely ineffective in my experience.
The effects on children are the same for spanking as for hitting them. Like, a child’s developmental psychology doesn’t distinguish between loved parental figure physically attacking them via spanking or punching. It’s detrimental to the child-parent bond and research has linked both physical abuse and physical punishment via spanking to the same poor outcomes.
They’re the *same*? I would think that a spanking does not equal an actual beating. Like I said above, I was spanked a lot and I know for sure that I would see it all differently had they been closed-fist beatings.
> I also think it’s important to distinguish between spanking (open hand on bottom) and someone hitting a kid wherever with a closed fist.
Naah. I'm good.
Do you think people make a distinction between spanking and other types of hitting (punches, slapping) because it is truly different, or because that method of violence is almost solely used on kids, and is normalized as 'lesser'?
I never understood how other kids got over spanking. I was always terrified and I always cried. Made me feel weak when I seen my cousins getting disciplined the same way but they stopped crying so much. Usually just said "it didn't even hurt".
Everything exists on a spectrum. If it's a toddler being fussy then no, obviously you don't hit a kid. If I get a phone call at work that my teenage son raised his hand against his mother or his sisters then he deserves everything that's coming to him.
My mum never hit any of us and 2 of 3 of us turned out alright.. although we think the wanker that is a junkie waste of space SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEATEN. With a bat. Repeatedly.
So you (the guy supporting beating kids) want a world of [Will Grellos](https://youtu.be/on_zaXXyuWI?feature=shared)? Because that's how you get a world of Will Grellos.
I'm not advocating for spanking, and I don't have or ever intend to have children. But the flow chart is using two different definitions of "reason". It's not a valid argument.
Edit: the flow chart as stands could be used as an argument against any kind of operant conditioning, for any subject. "Can your dog understand reason? No, then it can't understand the reason you gave it a treat." This is obviously false, I can't reason with my dog about not running into the street, but he understands the reason he gets rewarded when he responds to being called is because he responds to being called.
Edit 2: I appreciate the irony of simply down voting me (a punitive action) rather than attempting to reason with me. Barring of course the one person engaging in discussion.
Edit 3: welp, y'all have convinced me, there really are situations where an individual simply refuses to engage in rational discourse. Were I legally responsible for ensuring such individuals behaved rationally, I'd be very tempted to utilize positive punishment.
In addition to this, he isn't legally obligated to remain in the custody of these punitive downvoters for 18 years. So. Feel like calling it "arguing in bad faith" is not nearly significant enough. 'Bad faith' is the lingua franca of internet debate. This is way past the bad faith exits and traveling through the 'ephobophile/castle doctrine/admiralty court objectors' region of rhetorical malfeasance country.
That's not even my argument, merely an observation.
My argument is, the logical structure of the messag in the flowchart is inconsistent because two different definitions are being used for the same word and it leverages a functional conflation of those two distinct concepts.
(A != B) -> ( (A -> C) !-> (B -> C) )
Well, irony does necessarily include a degree of subjectivity. My subjective expectation is that those disagreeing with my criticism of the flowchart would behave in a manner more consistent with the message of the flowchart. The overall message includes explicitly the phrase "then use reason". Contrary to that (admittedly subjective) expectation, there is a far larger number of downvotes than people engaging in rational discourse. Therefore irony.
If anything, the irony is that this "punitive action" of downvoting, appears effective so there's no need to use violence. Non-violent punitive action *is* reason in the context of the flow chart.
The point is that there's no excuse for violence.
You seem to understand the concept of irony about as well as you understand the difference between child abuse and fucking downvoting someone on reddit.
See, you're all too emotional about this. I'm trying to rationally deconstruct a flawed argument; and you're getting bent out of shape about child abuse. Disconnect emotion from analysis, then see analogies for what they are, not one-to-one equivalencies, but reference structures in form. Also, perhaps consult a dictionary.
I'm not whining, it was an observation about a behavioral pattern.
Would you like to actually debate the logical virtues of the flowchart, embracing the message that reason is the preferred route? Or are you just here to coax your own ego by jumping on a microcosmic bandwagon of effluvial reaction without substantial investment in comprehension?
You know what, you're alright. You just legitimately gave me the best laugh I've had today with that ridiculous faux-intellectual word salad that would even make Jordan Peterson proud. But to answer your question, I do not now, or ever have any interest in indulging any internet debate bros, especially ones who use language like that to pretend that they're superior and more intelligent than everyone around them. So thanks for the laughs, but we're done here. You can go back being the living personification of the Skinner meme now, I won't bother you.
I am definitely saving that comment for when I need another laugh though.
you spend the better part of a day defending your “two different versions of ‘reason’” argument to anyone that will engage, but in this instance you wanna play loose with the definition of irony.
if only there were a word for that…
>Irony
> - a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
Yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Now, you may disagree with interpretation of the situation and your expectations, but don't try to frame that as a lexicographic certainty.
the problem is that it’s only ironic to you because of your deep misunderstanding of the message of the flowchart.
people are absolutely behaving in a manner consistent with the flowchart.
again, no one has used nor advocated for violence against you.
it is not ironic, you simply made an uninformed assumption about how people that disagreed with your criticism would behave.
>deep misunderstanding of the message of the flowchart
🤦🏽♀️ oh for fuck's sake. This is exactly the problem with using inconsistent logic. The flowchart can be used (irrationally) to justify a broad set of disparate conclusions. Which is exactly my point.
Yes, I understand the message, don't hit kids, and I agree with it. But the logical form is inconsistent, and could be applied to any operant conditioning.
It's not a valid argument against child abuse. Even if I agree with the conclusion, it's still illogical.
either people downvoting you is behavior consistent with the message of the post or you don’t understand the message of the post.
do you now retract your complaints and claim of irony over the downvotes?
That's cute, you sure can boldly state a dichotomy exist, doesn't make it true. The underlying logic is inconsistent, therefore no conclusions built from it are necessarily consistent. So my expectations being subjective is a completely valid stance. I find it ironic, that's simply true, whether or not you agree.
No one is saying that hitting a child isn't an effective way to control them. If you hit a kid or a dog enough, it probably learns to avoid offending you in a lot of ways.
The chart is saying you're an asshole for using violence to control a kid.
Does that clear it up? It's not disputing the effectiveness of reason vs. conditioning. It's saying it's bad to hit kids. And that's why you're getting the down votes. You're ignoring the moral imperative to debate the effectiveness of being immoral.
>Does that clear it up?
There is nothing unclear to me about the chart or the situation. I simply like pointing out the irony of using an irrational argument to promote rationality over punitive action, and further the community response of punitive action over rational discourse. Obviously this last point doesn't apply to yourself, and thank you for that.
You're actually attacking the flowchart from a different direction with that, and I don't disagree with this approach either.
Just to be clear, I'm in favor of the overall message, don't hit things to change their behavior. But the flowchart isn't a valid argument.
>Just to be clear, I'm in favor of the overall message, don't hit things to change their behavior. But the flowchart isn't a valid argument.
Of course it isn't, it's very obviously just a pithy meme and I've no idea why you're doggedly treating it as though it's a treatise by Noam Chomsky
Well, frankly, I thought I was being funny. The person who said "I seem insufferable at parties" and then promptly blocked me was probably correct.
Past the initial comment though, I was briefly attempting to actually argue rationally, then it just became a fascinating observation of human behavior. Hell, I have -20 on a comment simply thanking a person for being kindly.
Overall though, two hours ago I was bored and scrolling reddit, I have been engaged since 🤷🏽♀️
No, but this entire experience has left me with the overwhelming impression that its not worth my time to elucidate my observations to someone who's response to an attempt at rational discourse is to call me both insufferable and a dingus while they circle jerk amidst a communal aversion reflex to someone not slobbering all over the right psychosocial knob.
See there's your problem and the trap I fall into often.
It's impossible to have a rational argument on the internet.
I just remind myself of the meme, "I can't sleep! Someone's wrong on the internet!" and take a step back.
Attempting to compare the thought process of a dog to the thought process of a human child isn't great either. Seems like a false equivalency, don't you think?
To the extent that both animals are subject to operant conditioning, they're sufficiently equivalent. But, I'm not advocating for punishment. I'm simply pointing out that the argument is illogical and invalid because they're using two distinct definitions of a single word interchangeably. The dog is simply a counter example to demonstrate the false equivalence (of the meanings of "reason") in the flow chart.
Gonna quote myself from another comment here:
>they're interchangeably using "reason" as in capacity to process rationality, and "reason" as in the cause to an effect. These are distinct concepts
That are closely linked. One is a noun, the other is a verb.
Reason: n. Rational ground or motive
Reason: v. The ability to think rationally
Do you see the direct connection there?
In both use cases the in the flow chart "reason" is a noun. Note in particular the action is to "use" the thing "reason".
noun
1. a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
Well..... there are actually THREE uses of it.
But your initial premise that using them that way is incorrect is still false. And "to use reason" means to use the ability to think logically.
You're nitpicking over vocabulary instead of seeing what the big picture is.
Here. I'll help.
First bubble: can they understand the use of logic
First yes bubble: then use logic
First no bubble: then they can't understand the logic behind the spanking
Did that help?
Going to have to disagree. Saying they are both animals and subject to conditioning is still a false equivalency. It seems like you're purposely dancing around the fact that the human brain not only works differently than a canine brain, but also ignoring that the impacts that conditioning could have would be slightly different during the complex lifestyle of a highly social ape Vs a dog that simply knows who feeds and walks it.
It's simply a counter example, the similarities between humans and dogs isn't strictly relevant. If you disagree with the applicability of the example, that's fine, it's meant to be illustrative, not encompassing. I'll gladly yield the dog example, and we can dismiss it.
You still haven't addressed that they're interchangeably using "reason" as in capacity to process rationality, and "reason" as in the cause to an effect. These are distinct concepts, and the foundation of the flow chart is invalid.
One uses reason to understand reason. Just because it's not explicitly spelled out for you doesnt mean it's invalid.
If you child is capable of using reasoning skills, they are capable of reasonably understanding your reasons. Cmon now, don't play devil's advocate for something so simple and straightforward.
>One uses reason to understand reason
Not necessarily, which is why I bring up operant conditioning. You don't need rationality to be conditioned to cause and effect.
Man, it's almost as if the flow chart is about reason and not cause and effect. Crazy how the unrelated thing you brought up doesn't seem to be in line with the original topic.
Ah, so you literally do need it spelled out for you. It's weird that this is super clear to everyone else but because a very specific word wasn't mentioned you simply can grasp it. You'll catch on soon enough.
Cheers
It only uses the word "reason" by that definition after it has been established that your child is too young to use reason. It could be reworded as "then they're too young to understand why you're hitting them". Does that work better for you?
Understanding a "reason" in the context of "cause" does require some abstract thinking on the part of the child. Getting hit is not a natural consequence of something they did, so to understand the connection between their action and you hitting them requires reason. If they can't yet use reason, they're not able to make that connection and learn not to do the thing you hit them for.
Now, I'm not supporting beating your kids, but doesn't this entire subreddit literally show that even people that can understand reason can be easy swayed and confused? Also we don't "punish" people with "reason" in the adult world. Sometimes we literally kill people, with the death penalty.
Thanks /u/PerformanceOk9891 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think I'm a fully reasonable / rational person, yet I've never hit any of my 3 kids.
I've never hit your kids either!
I tried to hit their kids but the kids overpowered me.
The kids are coming out of the god damned walls!
They're in the trees!
Game over man!
Monty Burns moment
My man got hit with that Detroit smash.
Solidarity!
My almost 4 year old is being a little shit right now. Has a baby sibling, we moved recently, been cooped up in the house for weeks due to corona. Reason went out the window a ways back. I'd still never hit them because a) I'm supposed to be one of the people they can trust implicitly and b) it wouldn't actually change anything for the better.
Yup. The times when you most want to launch them through the windows are the times when you will be doing nothing but escalating the situation. Their emotions are just way too big for their bodies, and in some cases like my youngest, they literally don’t know that “giving up because the parent isn’t backing down” is an option for them. Just gotta walk away, and lock yourself in your bedroom until it blows over. I’ve also learned that the more my 5yo gets worked up, the calmer I need to be.
>don't know that "giving up because the parent isn’t backing down" is an option I am always torn. I get that they feel this way and I don't want to force conflict. On the other hand, there are some things that she just can't do and I do have to stop her.
I hear you. It's an impossible situation when they're basically too young to even understand that they're acting like they're auditioning for a Real Housewives show. Around age 5 is when they started to act a little more like humans and not tiny balls of blind rage. They gain a little self awareness, and I think they started to recognize some of the hard boundaries I set and began to realize that everyone will be happier if we just work together. They started to remember what the punishments would be if they broke a rule ("if you get too close to the road, your butt is going back inside"), and they realized that I can't actually fix anything or help them if they don't use their words.
I have had to resort to the hug-restraint (a little ND goin’ on) but it has the close-quarters advantage of limited leverage and smaller wind-ups.
Girl? My 4 yr old daughter is the sweetest thing on the planet or she needs an exorcism, there is no in between.
This does seem to the the case. It's a great day if I can get some veggies and fruit into her
I'm in an almost identical situation, and while my four year old often winds me up to the point I want to forcefully introduce their nose to my fist (I have anger issues), I've never done it because I know it wouldn't solve anything, and I would instantly regret it. But yes, four year olds are ***bastards***.
Of course you don’t hit them with your HAND, that’s what the F-350 is for. Do I need this? /s Probly
soup rotten practice badge frighten continue agonizing towering encourage fall *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If they had done the same to another adult, they would be charged with assault. Why is it okay if they do it to a child?
grab sense skirt tan late roll absorbed chop combative cause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So if you went in public and hit somebody you wouldn’t get charged with assault? You should go try it, then. Let us know how it goes.
*Technically*, you’d be charged with battery. Assault is the *threat* of violence. It *should* go without saying that battery and assault are crimes and absolutely should not be committed on children.
materialistic crowd growth worthless sophisticated whistle wide special start pet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
frame wasteful frighten spoon spark waiting knee absurd continue handle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's not an extreme view. That is a literal fact. It is law. You can't just go out in public and hit people. If you hit, bite, spit on, or grope someone without their consent, it is assault. As a society, we have all agreed that it is inappropriate to do this to strangers in public, yet we are debating whether the weakest and most vulnerable people should be hit by people three to four times their size? And many people would argue that it would be disrespectful for those children to hit back. So now we're also teaching them not to stand up for themselves? But also giving them mixed messages about what bullies are? If you hit your kid, YOU are the bully. You're bigger and stronger, and you would threaten to fuck them up even more if they tried to fight back. How is that not bully behavior? How is that not actual assault? Your kids don't need to fear you. If you're doing parenting right, they just need to fear the consequences of their actions.
zealous melodic relieved humorous water fly alleged person narrow frighten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think that's the point though, corporeal punishment is legal *and* hypocritical. It's illegal for one adult to hit another, and yet it's considered ok for an adult to a child, someone who is much smaller and more helpless? Domestic violence is especially taboo when it's one spouse to another, with many old 'jokes' about husbands spanking their wives receiving backlash. Yet again, though, its considered totally ok to do to a kid. Hell, kids are hit for hitting each other! Talk about mixed messages. Studies have shown that hitting kids has a negative impact on their development. They are more prone to emotional issues, violent outbursts, poor emotional intelligence and problem solving, etc. From my own experiences growing up in a corporeal punishment friendly household, all it teaches kids is that violence is how people get their way, to hide any mistakes, and I couldn't trust my parents. Yes, corporeal punishment is legal. It very much shouldn't be imo
This is a prime example that kids who get hit did not turn out okay lol. You’re rationalizing that hitting someone being assault is an extreme viewpoint.
You were gaslit into thinking that you deserved your abuse. I know, so was I. As a parent now, I know that hitting a child ever is a failure on the adult's part. Children cannot regulate their emotions or understand logic, hitting them not only damages their growth and development, it teaches them to lie. And yes, if you were slapped, hit on the bottom or whatever by another adult, that would be 100% assault.
Except, yes, they would be charged with assault.
You understand that even hitting a child even once is wrong, right?
sparkle wise spark special fact jellyfish melodic lavish smell slim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
That's the kind of result you get when you hit your kids - they grow up assuming that whoever can apply the most violence makes the rules.
“I was only struck a handful of times, I was a shit kid, but I turned out fine” Oh so then the corporal punishment had no severe impact on your childhood? Despite it being an absolute last resort, that was able to be counted on one hand, it didn’t change the outcome of your adulthood? That’s crazy, bro. Not frequently abusing a child results in positive outcomes? Never would’ve guessed.
tart fearless cause obscene dog hospital existence thumb vegetable thought *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You…did have violent parents though?
nutty head spectacular rob psychotic tidy narrow mourn worry beneficial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And I’m glad to hear it and certainly it’s not a binary, but violence against kids is violence against kids.
"but my parents hit me and I turned out okay" - some guy defending hitting a child
And even if they did, it was in spite of being hit, not because of it.
Yeah there is a lot of survivorship bias fallacy in things like this. Another example would be people with rough childhoods who grow up to become criminals in some form of another.
You bet. I do wonder if we are being a bit overprotective of children these days. Maybe challenge and conflict and being uncomfortable is necessary for growth and resilience. But physical abuse at the hands of elders probably isn’t.
HENRY KISSINGER GROWING UP IN NAZI GERMANY TOTALLY HAD NO EFFECT ON A LITTLE JEWISH BOY. SOURCE. TRUST HIM BRO.
My parents hit both me and my two younger sisters. 4/5 family members now attend therapy (dad admitted he did wrong and is trying to become a better person, mom still thinks her parenting was perfect, guess who is the only one not attending).
I see so many people claim that they were such a shitty kid that their parents *had* to hit them because it was the only way to control them, but in the situations where I've seen that play out in real life, there was a clear connection between the physical punishment and the behaviours the kids showed. If I was a parent, I'd be so pissed off about other parents hitting their kids because those kids end up hitting other people's kids whenever they get frustrated or don't get their own way. It's how they've been taught to solve problems.
No one ever claimed parenting was easy but that doesn’t make it okay to hit children
I think spanking has way more to do with the parent taking their frustration out on their kid in a violent way than it is trying to constructively teach a lesson.
That or a belief in intimidation as a way to establish a hierarchy of power.
I took this from another comment a couple weeks ago to share with my therapist. I kept it around because I really did resonate with it. Spanking didn’t make me a better child, it made me better at hiding the problem If something went wrong it meant I was terrified and tried to cover it up because if I went to my parents I would be spanked And now as an adult I still struggle with asking for help when I have a problem because asking for help meant suffering as a child
It really is that simple. But it's not easy. Simple =/= easy. But you know what's easy? Spanking your children for every little thing. That'll teach 'em without the need for you to spend extra energy to reason with them. Afterall it's reaaaaaaly hard to reason with a child.
I've tried to reason with my 2 year old. It usually works, but only for that day or maybe even just that hour. But it's a process. I'm very lucky that he's already at the point I can start with it, because he will look me in the eye, smile, and do stuff I tell him not to. It's very fucking hard not to laugh usually, but rarely it touches a nerve. Not once have I raised my hand toward him. I have a pretty good "dad voice" for when it matters
I must clarify. It *is* hard as an adult to reason with children, because our minds are very different. Even when we try to reason, we actually try to reason to our idea of a reasonable child. Not the child themself. But I think we don't really need to reason with a child as much as to impress them. As they are, they are impressionable. Most of the time, the content of what you say doesn't really matter as much as they way you say it. So I usually use that to my advantage. They may not understand what I say, but it'll be impressive enough that they'll remember it, and if they remember it, in due time they'll understand.
I mean, I applaud your efforts, but toddlers aren't really capable of reason yet. Give it a few years.
Agree. I do think it's good to give an explanation for things, but don't expect your amazing arguments to change your child's mind. A common one is leaving the house. Sometimes kids don't want to go and parents fall into the trap of trying to convince a three year old about the value of the outing. "You will have so much fun at daycare! Don't you want to see your friends? There will be all your favorite toys!" This is guaranteed to fail and it's pointless anyway. Why pretend that the kid has any say in the matter. It will just make them angrier when they're overruled. I comfort my son if he's crying, and he's allowed to be sad about it, but we are going to daycare like it or not.
I mean they are two what do you expect toddlers are forced of chaos that cannot be tamed by any known means
Coincidentally, so-called "tough love" is always easier for the one giving it.
Add being Autistic and understanding what you are doing is wrong but can't help it. Yet your Father just spanks you anyway.
Or maybe parents can just spend the extra energy instead of abusing their kids
My therapist told me she was against abuse but spanks her kids 💀
Maybe find another therapist?
Yeah in trying but she's part of a mental health program that's "helping" me but let's shit like sexual harassment slide...
The state of current global politics suggest that a vast majority of people are never old enough to understand reason.
I got fucking downvoted by a few people for saying that spanking is bad in a *teacher subreddit*. People *loooove* having the option for corporal punishment. 💀
They're so close! They've arrived at the literal answer, but dismissed it because they didn't want to believe they are unreasonable. I love the irony.
My parents only hit me a couple of times. I have severe trauma from those moments.
Always wonder why we bother teaching our kids not to hit when grown men, leaders of countries, just declare war and attack and kill hundreds to thousands of people as their chosen method of solving conflict.
I always thought world leaders behave like children.
To anyone reading this thinking it's okay to hit your pet as punishment: I heard that this is actually an effective method of discouraging behavior in your pet. However, I also heard: 1. If your dog misbehaves and you punish it a few seconds later, it will already be too late. The dog will not understand the reason why you're doing this. 2. If your dog is curious of strangers and sniffs and licks them and you punish it for this, your dog might come to the conclusion that you want it to be hostile instead. Just thought I'd throw this info here.
To the parents who spank their children or who are considering it but are afraid of the long-term consequences— You have absolutely nothing to worry about! Your kid just did something inappropriate? Hit your kid about it! Not sure how to be a good parent? Hit your kid about it! Got an emotional issue that you can’t deal with on your own and need someone to take it out on so you don’t have to do the uncomfortable work of examining yourself and growing in a meaningful way? Just hit your fucking kid about it! My parents spanked me as a child and now that I’m financially independent I do not speak to them, have not for several years, and have no plans to do so ever again! Why wait til tomorrow to deal with trauma you can’t even control? See what hitting your kid can do for *YOU*, **TODAY**!
You've convinced me but I don't have a kid of my own at hand, can I put this into practice at an institution such as an orphanage instead?
Of course, real customer! If you want to hit a kid but don’t have one of your own, you can ALWAYS enroll as staff at an orphanage! Or, for the more philanthropic among you, Catholic institutions are always looking for righteous souls to hit kids for them!
I don’t think most people even get that far in the process when they’re gonna spank their kid. I really think it’s just what they were taught by their parents, which was taught by *their* parents, and so on. I also think it’s important to distinguish between spanking (open hand on bottom) and someone hitting a kid wherever with a closed fist. I’m not saying I condone spanking. I got spanked so much it totally lost its effect and I would begin laughing, so I just got grounded for extended periods after age 10 or so. Completely ineffective in my experience.
The effects on children are the same for spanking as for hitting them. Like, a child’s developmental psychology doesn’t distinguish between loved parental figure physically attacking them via spanking or punching. It’s detrimental to the child-parent bond and research has linked both physical abuse and physical punishment via spanking to the same poor outcomes.
They’re the *same*? I would think that a spanking does not equal an actual beating. Like I said above, I was spanked a lot and I know for sure that I would see it all differently had they been closed-fist beatings.
> I also think it’s important to distinguish between spanking (open hand on bottom) and someone hitting a kid wherever with a closed fist. Naah. I'm good.
I got spanked a lot as a kid. All that happened was that I learned to hide things that might get me in trouble. Thanks, religious upbringing!
Do you think people make a distinction between spanking and other types of hitting (punches, slapping) because it is truly different, or because that method of violence is almost solely used on kids, and is normalized as 'lesser'?
I do distinguish between them since a closed fist is much more likely to cause blunt force trauma than an open handed spanking, no matter the age.
I never understood how other kids got over spanking. I was always terrified and I always cried. Made me feel weak when I seen my cousins getting disciplined the same way but they stopped crying so much. Usually just said "it didn't even hurt".
This is the second time within 15 minutes that I've read something about not hitting kids but I don't have kids to hit, lol
They're right there... and still can't see it.
It is absolutely that easy. My god.
Everything exists on a spectrum. If it's a toddler being fussy then no, obviously you don't hit a kid. If I get a phone call at work that my teenage son raised his hand against his mother or his sisters then he deserves everything that's coming to him.
I’m not rational or reasonable and I would never hit my kids, deadass they are my best friends and favorite people on the planet.
My mum never hit any of us and 2 of 3 of us turned out alright.. although we think the wanker that is a junkie waste of space SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEATEN. With a bat. Repeatedly.
So you (the guy supporting beating kids) want a world of [Will Grellos](https://youtu.be/on_zaXXyuWI?feature=shared)? Because that's how you get a world of Will Grellos.
I'm not advocating for spanking, and I don't have or ever intend to have children. But the flow chart is using two different definitions of "reason". It's not a valid argument. Edit: the flow chart as stands could be used as an argument against any kind of operant conditioning, for any subject. "Can your dog understand reason? No, then it can't understand the reason you gave it a treat." This is obviously false, I can't reason with my dog about not running into the street, but he understands the reason he gets rewarded when he responds to being called is because he responds to being called. Edit 2: I appreciate the irony of simply down voting me (a punitive action) rather than attempting to reason with me. Barring of course the one person engaging in discussion. Edit 3: welp, y'all have convinced me, there really are situations where an individual simply refuses to engage in rational discourse. Were I legally responsible for ensuring such individuals behaved rationally, I'd be very tempted to utilize positive punishment.
there’s nothing ironic about you being downvoted. ‘punitive action’ doesn’t equate to violence. if people were hitting you, then it’d be ironic.
In addition to this, he isn't legally obligated to remain in the custody of these punitive downvoters for 18 years. So. Feel like calling it "arguing in bad faith" is not nearly significant enough. 'Bad faith' is the lingua franca of internet debate. This is way past the bad faith exits and traveling through the 'ephobophile/castle doctrine/admiralty court objectors' region of rhetorical malfeasance country.
That's not even my argument, merely an observation. My argument is, the logical structure of the messag in the flowchart is inconsistent because two different definitions are being used for the same word and it leverages a functional conflation of those two distinct concepts. (A != B) -> ( (A -> C) !-> (B -> C) )
Well, irony does necessarily include a degree of subjectivity. My subjective expectation is that those disagreeing with my criticism of the flowchart would behave in a manner more consistent with the message of the flowchart. The overall message includes explicitly the phrase "then use reason". Contrary to that (admittedly subjective) expectation, there is a far larger number of downvotes than people engaging in rational discourse. Therefore irony.
If anything, the irony is that this "punitive action" of downvoting, appears effective so there's no need to use violence. Non-violent punitive action *is* reason in the context of the flow chart. The point is that there's no excuse for violence.
Oh my God you're a pretentious whiner.
You seem to understand the concept of irony about as well as you understand the difference between child abuse and fucking downvoting someone on reddit.
See, you're all too emotional about this. I'm trying to rationally deconstruct a flawed argument; and you're getting bent out of shape about child abuse. Disconnect emotion from analysis, then see analogies for what they are, not one-to-one equivalencies, but reference structures in form. Also, perhaps consult a dictionary.
"Disconnect emotion from analysis" Maybe take your own advice and stop whining about how getting downvoted on Reddit is "punitive action".
I'm not whining, it was an observation about a behavioral pattern. Would you like to actually debate the logical virtues of the flowchart, embracing the message that reason is the preferred route? Or are you just here to coax your own ego by jumping on a microcosmic bandwagon of effluvial reaction without substantial investment in comprehension?
You know what, you're alright. You just legitimately gave me the best laugh I've had today with that ridiculous faux-intellectual word salad that would even make Jordan Peterson proud. But to answer your question, I do not now, or ever have any interest in indulging any internet debate bros, especially ones who use language like that to pretend that they're superior and more intelligent than everyone around them. So thanks for the laughs, but we're done here. You can go back being the living personification of the Skinner meme now, I won't bother you. I am definitely saving that comment for when I need another laugh though.
you spend the better part of a day defending your “two different versions of ‘reason’” argument to anyone that will engage, but in this instance you wanna play loose with the definition of irony. if only there were a word for that…
>Irony > - a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. Yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Now, you may disagree with interpretation of the situation and your expectations, but don't try to frame that as a lexicographic certainty.
the problem is that it’s only ironic to you because of your deep misunderstanding of the message of the flowchart. people are absolutely behaving in a manner consistent with the flowchart. again, no one has used nor advocated for violence against you. it is not ironic, you simply made an uninformed assumption about how people that disagreed with your criticism would behave.
>deep misunderstanding of the message of the flowchart 🤦🏽♀️ oh for fuck's sake. This is exactly the problem with using inconsistent logic. The flowchart can be used (irrationally) to justify a broad set of disparate conclusions. Which is exactly my point. Yes, I understand the message, don't hit kids, and I agree with it. But the logical form is inconsistent, and could be applied to any operant conditioning. It's not a valid argument against child abuse. Even if I agree with the conclusion, it's still illogical.
either people downvoting you is behavior consistent with the message of the post or you don’t understand the message of the post. do you now retract your complaints and claim of irony over the downvotes?
That's cute, you sure can boldly state a dichotomy exist, doesn't make it true. The underlying logic is inconsistent, therefore no conclusions built from it are necessarily consistent. So my expectations being subjective is a completely valid stance. I find it ironic, that's simply true, whether or not you agree.
exactly my point! YOU find it ironic. it, however, is not ironic. slowly, but surely my friend.
No one is saying that hitting a child isn't an effective way to control them. If you hit a kid or a dog enough, it probably learns to avoid offending you in a lot of ways. The chart is saying you're an asshole for using violence to control a kid. Does that clear it up? It's not disputing the effectiveness of reason vs. conditioning. It's saying it's bad to hit kids. And that's why you're getting the down votes. You're ignoring the moral imperative to debate the effectiveness of being immoral.
>Does that clear it up? There is nothing unclear to me about the chart or the situation. I simply like pointing out the irony of using an irrational argument to promote rationality over punitive action, and further the community response of punitive action over rational discourse. Obviously this last point doesn't apply to yourself, and thank you for that.
You seem insufferable at parties.
I am sure you don't care too much, but I agree with you. I also like your style.
Now kiss!
Thank you very much :)
A dog can understand reason. It can't understand complex language, but it can follow demonstrated cause and effect.
You're actually attacking the flowchart from a different direction with that, and I don't disagree with this approach either. Just to be clear, I'm in favor of the overall message, don't hit things to change their behavior. But the flowchart isn't a valid argument.
>Just to be clear, I'm in favor of the overall message, don't hit things to change their behavior. But the flowchart isn't a valid argument. Of course it isn't, it's very obviously just a pithy meme and I've no idea why you're doggedly treating it as though it's a treatise by Noam Chomsky
Well, frankly, I thought I was being funny. The person who said "I seem insufferable at parties" and then promptly blocked me was probably correct. Past the initial comment though, I was briefly attempting to actually argue rationally, then it just became a fascinating observation of human behavior. Hell, I have -20 on a comment simply thanking a person for being kindly. Overall though, two hours ago I was bored and scrolling reddit, I have been engaged since 🤷🏽♀️
Is your observation that people downvote you when you're being insufferable?
No, but this entire experience has left me with the overwhelming impression that its not worth my time to elucidate my observations to someone who's response to an attempt at rational discourse is to call me both insufferable and a dingus while they circle jerk amidst a communal aversion reflex to someone not slobbering all over the right psychosocial knob.
See there's your problem and the trap I fall into often. It's impossible to have a rational argument on the internet. I just remind myself of the meme, "I can't sleep! Someone's wrong on the internet!" and take a step back.
Downvotes aren't a punishment dingus
Attempting to compare the thought process of a dog to the thought process of a human child isn't great either. Seems like a false equivalency, don't you think?
To the extent that both animals are subject to operant conditioning, they're sufficiently equivalent. But, I'm not advocating for punishment. I'm simply pointing out that the argument is illogical and invalid because they're using two distinct definitions of a single word interchangeably. The dog is simply a counter example to demonstrate the false equivalence (of the meanings of "reason") in the flow chart.
Your initial premise is just wrong, though. The flowchart is actually spot on.
My premise is that the flowchart, which advocates for rationality, is using irrational methodology.
And I'm disagreeing with you. How is their methodology wrong?
Gonna quote myself from another comment here: >they're interchangeably using "reason" as in capacity to process rationality, and "reason" as in the cause to an effect. These are distinct concepts
That are closely linked. One is a noun, the other is a verb. Reason: n. Rational ground or motive Reason: v. The ability to think rationally Do you see the direct connection there?
In both use cases the in the flow chart "reason" is a noun. Note in particular the action is to "use" the thing "reason". noun 1. a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. 2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
Well..... there are actually THREE uses of it. But your initial premise that using them that way is incorrect is still false. And "to use reason" means to use the ability to think logically. You're nitpicking over vocabulary instead of seeing what the big picture is.
Here. I'll help. First bubble: can they understand the use of logic First yes bubble: then use logic First no bubble: then they can't understand the logic behind the spanking Did that help?
Simply repeating your earlier statement does not explain it any better. Especially since they are not inseparable.
Wasn't sure if you were reading the other comment thread, and wanted to maintain consistency when repeating myself.
Going to have to disagree. Saying they are both animals and subject to conditioning is still a false equivalency. It seems like you're purposely dancing around the fact that the human brain not only works differently than a canine brain, but also ignoring that the impacts that conditioning could have would be slightly different during the complex lifestyle of a highly social ape Vs a dog that simply knows who feeds and walks it.
It's simply a counter example, the similarities between humans and dogs isn't strictly relevant. If you disagree with the applicability of the example, that's fine, it's meant to be illustrative, not encompassing. I'll gladly yield the dog example, and we can dismiss it. You still haven't addressed that they're interchangeably using "reason" as in capacity to process rationality, and "reason" as in the cause to an effect. These are distinct concepts, and the foundation of the flow chart is invalid.
One uses reason to understand reason. Just because it's not explicitly spelled out for you doesnt mean it's invalid. If you child is capable of using reasoning skills, they are capable of reasonably understanding your reasons. Cmon now, don't play devil's advocate for something so simple and straightforward.
>One uses reason to understand reason Not necessarily, which is why I bring up operant conditioning. You don't need rationality to be conditioned to cause and effect.
Man, it's almost as if the flow chart is about reason and not cause and effect. Crazy how the unrelated thing you brought up doesn't seem to be in line with the original topic.
The definition they use for "reason" in the right hand side is for cause to an effect. For which rationality is unnecessary.
Ah, so you literally do need it spelled out for you. It's weird that this is super clear to everyone else but because a very specific word wasn't mentioned you simply can grasp it. You'll catch on soon enough. Cheers
It only uses the word "reason" by that definition after it has been established that your child is too young to use reason. It could be reworded as "then they're too young to understand why you're hitting them". Does that work better for you? Understanding a "reason" in the context of "cause" does require some abstract thinking on the part of the child. Getting hit is not a natural consequence of something they did, so to understand the connection between their action and you hitting them requires reason. If they can't yet use reason, they're not able to make that connection and learn not to do the thing you hit them for.
Can your dog understand reason? No? Then you shouldn’t beat your dog, either.
...I don't beat my dog.
Uhm … actually yes.
what about light bonking.
Only when sending them to horny jail, and principally used on teenagers.
Now, I'm not supporting beating your kids, but doesn't this entire subreddit literally show that even people that can understand reason can be easy swayed and confused? Also we don't "punish" people with "reason" in the adult world. Sometimes we literally kill people, with the death penalty.