Corporal Punishment?

[Violet]

First of all we're not talking about a monarch and a country, we're talking about the common misbehavior of a child. Secondly, saying that a monarch has to choose between only those two arbitrary choices during their rule is your own delusional fantasy. Catherine the Great was beloved, but she was known to be strong and disciplined in her reign. Regardless, the actions of an entire country's population regarding their ruler has NOTHING to do with the daily light discipline of a child. Apples and oranges.

Is there so much difference between parenting and ruling a kingdom? I see difference in scale alone.

An empire must maintain control if it is to maintain existence. Catherine the Great was beloved indeed... she gained some good land and didn't butcher her own people to do so (at least nothing on level with what Russians are used to). She was even a good thing for education and the arts. Firmness, strength, and discipline are not lacking as a result of being beloved. Infact they've little to do with it. One could be strong and disciplined and be a butcher so easily as they could be a nobleman.

You call apples and oranges, I call big apples and little apples.

Utterly ridiculous and your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Balance is essential to survival to everything on this planet. It's everywhere, and anywhere the world is out of balance - chaos follows. Balance of power, balance in the environment, balance in economics, balance of government .... essential to survival and essential to good discipline.

On the contrary: what you suggest is contradiction. That one should butcher their people and grant innumerable favors to their people. What this tells your people (or indeed, child) is that you are unbalanced... perhaps even crazy.

You cannot have balance when it comes to control. You can have only what I spake you could have: a government fallen.

[Cinjin]

First of all we're not talking about a monarch and a country, we're talking about the common misbehavior of a child. Secondly, saying that a monarch has to choose between only those two arbitrary choices during their rule is your own delusional fantasy. Catherine the Great was beloved, but she was known to be strong and disciplined in her reign. Regardless, the actions of an entire country's population regarding their ruler has NOTHING to do with the daily light discipline of a child. Apples and oranges.

Is there so much difference between parenting and ruling a kingdom? I see difference in scale alone.

An empire must maintain control if it is to maintain existence. Catherine the Great was beloved indeed... she gained some good land and didn't butcher her own people to do so (at least nothing on level with what Russians are used to). She was even a good thing for education and the arts. Firmness, strength, and discipline are not lacking as a result of being beloved. Infact they've little to do with it. One could be strong and disciplined and be a butcher so easily as they could be a nobleman.

You call apples and oranges, I call big apples and little apples.

Utterly ridiculous and your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Balance is essential to survival to everything on this planet. It's everywhere, and anywhere the world is out of balance - chaos follows. Balance of power, balance in the environment, balance in economics, balance of government .... essential to survival and essential to good discipline.

On the contrary: what you suggest is contradiction. That one should butcher their people and grant innumerable favors to their people. What this tells your people (or indeed, child) is that you are unbalanced... perhaps even crazy.

You cannot have balance when it comes to control. You can have only what I spake you could have: a government fallen.

Wait a minute - I know where I recognize this argument ... this is a Statler argument: "What I say is true because I wrote it, and what I wrote must be true because I've backed it up with unqualified statements that have no more validity to them than a moon made out of cheese"

The phrases you used, "balance tells people you are unbalanced" and "You can't have balance when it comes to control" are absolutely laughable you silly silly little girl. I think perhaps your own skewed perception of the world around you is influencing your ability to discern the obvious from the ludicrous.

This last post of yours is so logically flawed I'm starting to really think that you're just fuckin with me aren't you!

[Violet]

Wait a minute - I know where I recognize this argument ... this is a Statler argument: "What I say is true because I wrote it, and what I wrote must be true because I've backed it up with unqualified statements that have no more validity to them than a moon made out of cheese"

And I've heard this one too... it is an argument from association, which is a logical fallacy

The phrases you used, "balance tells people you are unbalanced" and "You can't have balance when it comes to control" are absolutely laughable you silly silly little girl. I think perhaps your own skewed perception of the world around you is influencing your ability to discern the obvious from the ludicrous.

I infact never said that balance tells people you are unbalanced Because you can't have balance in the first place when it comes to control: trying for it is a sign of imbalance

My perception is skewed? This coming from someone with a blue name?

This last post of yours is so logically flawed I'm starting to really think that you're just fuckin with me aren't you!

Yes, hon.... and I'm also laughing at Machiavelli who (bless his core philosophies) makes almost every argument a dichotomy. I just reread The Prince, you see... and while many of his examples are amusing and his basis is strong: the way he defends these is ridiculous Makes him an entertaining read... but I'm far past the point where I could find that enlightening Plan to reread The Art of War next.

(I feel I must spell this out so stupid people get it: I have just Machiavellian trolled you. Can I have a hug since most people can't tell the difference between me screwing with people and me stating what I think? )

[Cinjin]

Alright Sae.

[Violet]

Yay! ^_^ I got hug acceptance! That's like almost as good as a hug ^_^

Almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades though...

What does this mean 0.o

[Napoléon]

This isn't the fucking hug thread! Take your loveable nature somewhere else!

[Autumnlicious]

Napoleon is a cheese-eating surrender monkey.

Anywho, back on topic -

Parents should be the ones to practice corrective punishments on their children but no one else, due to the potential for liability issues. And perhaps one can lay out guidelines of how far one can go in corporal punishment. Swatting your kid is different than punching full out, for example. One is corporal punishment, the other is abuse.

There is a gradient of 'allowed' to 'abuse'.

[Napoléon]

Napoleon is a cheese-eating surrender monkey.

Thanks!

I agree though (not on the cheese-eating surrender monkey bit), that only parents should be allowed to use corporal punishment.

It's all too easy for teachers to abuse students using this method of punishment, and some will even enjoy it.

[Violet]

Thanks!

I agree though (not on the cheese-eating surrender monkey bit), that only parents should be allowed to use corporal punishment.

It's all too easy for teachers to abuse students using this method of punishment, and some will even enjoy it.

Tis all too easy for parents to abuse physical pain as a punishment... and some will even enjoy it.

And then there are the parents who abuse emotional pain as a punishment (ie: for being fat, for not performing to the parent's standard)... and whether or not a form of torture is enjoyed: nobody walks away unchanged.

[Napoléon]

Tis all too easy for parents to abuse physical pain as a punishment... and some will even enjoy it.

I knew someone would say this.

The difference between a parent and a teacher though, is that if a parent wants to do it, regardless of what the law says there isn't much stopping them and no one can monitor it unless it is flagged to social services or whatever.
It becomes a shitload harder for a teacher to abuse kids like this if the law is against physical beating however, because they do not have the cover of using corporal punishment as reason for beating a student. If the law says that corporal punishment cannot be used in a classroom it becomes almost impossible for a teacher to abuse kids in this manner and get away with it. Would you say the same if the law was that corporal punishment could not be used by parents?

You can more effectively enforce the law in a public estabilishment like a school, it's much harder to enforce it in people's homes.