Where do your morals originate?
Actually, you can:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...tes/define.cfm
Educate yourself.
Where do your morals originate?
So you're saying anecdotal evidence trumps copious amounts of scientific data? I just want to be clear the level of justification you're using here.
"Physical discipline, such as spanking or paddling, is not considered abuse as long as it is reasonable and causes no bodily injury to the child."
Texas Physical Abuse:
...excluding
an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or conservator that does not expose the child to a
substantial risk of harm.
Ass whipping with a belt does not lead to a substantial risk of harm.
Maybe you should read it yourself before posting it with a smug at ude.
Now you have to define "reasonable".
Are you really turning a debate about abuse into a morality argument? I don't understand your question.
Depends on who's deciphering the data.
I don't need justification, it's not my child.
Besides, it's his daughter, not yours. Last I checked parents had the right to teach their system of morality to their children, and to enforce their rules.
Obviously you and many others here have never seen a real "abused" child.
Also, you guys probably didn't go to school when paddling was in effect. Ask your parents.
Unless you're implying children should be raised to do what they're told out of fear instead of making reasonable judgments for themselves about what is right and wrong.
"Well geepers paw, she's not physically injured, we didn't even break her jaw!"
Are you that ing dense that you think repeated whippings with a belt will not cause physical injury? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that position?
Raising a kid is about getting them to their adult lives with the tools they need to survive. It's not about making friends. A parent isn't a buddy, but a mentor.
Do all adults not drive drunk because of reasonable judgment, or do some of them not do it because they fear the repercussions?
It's your link dude, you explain it. I just pointed it out to you since, in your haste to prove a point, you didn't even read it.
It's pretty telling that only the women in this thread (summers, cry havoc, etc) have a problem with this kind of discipline. Would you feel differently if it was a boy getting the belt?
Either way, i think people are overreacting a bit too much to what appears to be an isolated incident, and not the norm.
I grew up in a house like that and I learned what hypocrite assholes my parents are. It turns my stomach that you're defending that behavior.
How old were you when you left?
I'm finding it incredibly difficult to be disturbed by such an obviously set-up video. This looks on par with "reality porn" except for the "reality torture" crowd...and it fails on that level too because I don't see how anyone could get there rocks off on it either. Simply doesn't look authentic enough, gotta get a better storyline than beating a mentally ill kid over some internet downloads.
I know what it means to raise kids. I'm doing a fine job of it if I do say so myself. I don't want my kids to be violent idiots when they go off to college. I don't want them to believe everything they're told as adults because they were too scared to question me as a child. I don't want them to beat their wives or kids just because they can. And yes, I'd feel the same way if it was a boy in the video. I'd almost give the belt-beating a pass if the child had punched his or her mom the face when she asked him to wash up for dinner. But a beating for downloading a game on the computer? Really? And then to tell her the computer is the reason there's drama in the house? Really, you don't think it's because you're bat- crazy and beating your kid?
So basically you're not arguing, you're just posting to prove you can read. Got it.
You still lose. Your position has no scientific basis and every DCFS branch in the US would be all over you if you did this to your kids and they found out.
If it's ok to beat a kid for hitting mom, it's ok to beat a kid. Now were down to haggling over morals.
Again, where did your morals originate?
Also, you don't even know the story. Way to pass judgment based on a video clip the girl obviously set up knowing she was going to get her ass whipped for violating rules.
Illegal activity in a house of justice can be damning to her father's career.
Yeah, it takes a really awesome parent to have to resort to repeatedly whipping a child to attempt to modify their behavior!
Personally I don't drive drunk because it's a phenomenally stupid thing to do. Maybe that's just me? But no you're right, fear of punishment is the ONLY thing that guides adult behavior. Do you even listen to yourself?Do all adults not drive drunk because of reasonable judgment, or do some of them not do it because they fear the repercussions?
Follow the thread, see the part where you posted that link all smug like you had it nailed? Well you didn't read it first. It helps to read what you are using as a rebuttal.
You still lose. Your position has no scientific basis and every DCFS branch in the US would be all over you if you did this to your kids and they found out.
I just copy and pasted what was in the link you posted.
Your assertion is just a guess and there's absolutely zero evidence to support it (ironic that you mention "scientific basis" right before you throw out that baseless assertion).
When you get one, let me know how it goes.
Your trolling attempts are as ty as your reading comprehension skills.Personally I don't drive drunk because it's a phenomenally stupid thing to do. Maybe that's just me? But no you're right, fear of punishment is the ONLY thing that guides adult behavior. Do you even listen to yourself?
There's a reason I said "some of them".
Are you now trying to build a case against the concept of deterrence?
And what I posted is perfectly accurate. Go find a doctor who will tell you that repeated lashes with a belt won't cause physical injury. By all means go try to find one.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out and agreeing with me. Your position has no scientific basis. We're all in agreement then.Your assertion is just a guess and there's absolutely zero evidence to support it (ironic that you mention "scientific basis" right before you throw out that baseless assertion).
Don't forget the term "substantial".
People have gotten their asses whipped forever. Welts aren't the same as "substantial physical injury". If you think they are, you haven't experienced abuse.
ty troll job number 2.Yes, thank you for pointing this out and agreeing with me. Your position has no scientific basis. We're all in agreement then.
Do you always become a little when you are defeated?
I don't plan on ever going to jail for whipping my kids. Are you saying that it's justified?
Exactly. Deterrence. Not "if you break the law we are going to whip you endlessly". Those who don't drink and drive out of fear of the legal system are worried about losing their license and going to prison, NOT being held down by a deputy and having their face smashed with a nightstick. Why do you think that is? Because physical deterrence has been determined to be inhumane. Moreover, they aren't as effective as other forms of reinforcement.Your trolling attempts are as ty as your reading comprehension skills.
There's a reason I said "some of them".
Are you now trying to build a case against the concept of deterrence?
Your comparisons are absurd.
Continue being wrong. Continue citing sources that further solidify the position I initially stated.
If you were funny, I'd tell you to get your Hollywood ass in the troll forum. Instead how bout you just stop posting?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)