Negative reinforcement

[chcr]

the implication would therefore be that the reasons for youth violence and dysfunction have little direct connection to the use of physical corporal punishment, and more to do with the cultural background the children are raised within.

You hit that nail right on the head, ris. I think it's a parenting issue, but a separate one.

 

[outside looking in]

My statement was a general one expressing my opnion on the subject and certainly wasn't directed at any members.

If someone says "abortion is the same as murder" it's not a personal attack on every person who was ever involved in one. It's expressing your opinion on the subject.

That's a cop out, and you know it. It's the same pattern you typically follow... make horribly insulting statements, and then play innocent and accuse everyone else of insulting you. Some of us see through that act. You like to piss people off, and you like doing it in precisely this way.

A personal attack is different. It is an insult directed at a particular member. It's really not that difficult of a concept.

BS. Your first statement was as personal, insulting, and inflamatory as I can imagine. You did far, far worse than call anyone by name... you said "parents." You knew exactly what kind of responses that would generate. You always do.

I thought the subject was physical punishment, that's what I was talking about and what the studies dealt with. If you want to talk about abuse start another thread.

You mentioned domestic abuse, and ris posted a snippet from a study that talked about how many children die from physical abuse. It's a natural place for the discussion to go, and I wasn't the one who led it there.

Maybe you could point out specifically in each study where they have gone wrong.

They all made the same obvious mistake. I've already pointed it out. Do I have to give a lecture on it?

Ok then, so next time don't say I keep talking about child abuse when I never mentioned child abuse. Easy enough.

Did I say you kept talking about child abuse? Easy to forget precisely what someone said, isn't it?

If "hit" upsets you that much I would be glad to use "spanking", physical punishment", or "corporal punishment" or maybe you could give me a list of acceptable terms for the subject matter?

There you go playing Mr. Innocent again. You start out by calling a large group "pathetic parents," and now you're acting like you didn't intentionally use inflammatory terms.

I've linked to at least 5 studies, plus the ones Ris linked to....all find against physical punishment. Find any supporting it yet?

Why? To counterbalance the erroneous conclusions in the ones you've posted with some of my own? After thinking about the subject, I'm not sure if it's practical to conduct a really scientific study of the issue. So I'm not about to go looking for something I don't think will have much meaning.

 

[flavio]

That's a cop out, and you know it. It's the same pattern you typically follow... make horribly insulting statements, and then play innocent and accuse everyone else of insulting you. Some of us see through that act. You like to piss people off, and you like doing it in precisely this way.

OMG I said something against striking kids, how horriblyinsulting. Speaking out against striking kids would naturally piss anyone off right?

BS. Your first statement was as personal, insulting, and inflamatory as I can imagine. You did far, far worse than call anyone by name... you said "parents." You knew exactly what kind of responses that would generate. You always do.

Still having trouble with the concept of personal attack vs. opinion huh.


You know, I'm just going to delete the rest of my response. If you can come up with any studies that support spanking it might be worth considering.

 

[a13antichrist]

I'm under the impression that a lot of you try extra hard to find flav's posts insulting, because you know he has done so in the past. "Hitting children is a pathetic attempt at parenting" is not insulting to parents. This is an attack on the methods used by those parents, and is precisely the topic of this thread. "Cutting the heads off flowers is a pathetic attempt at gardening" is no more direct and certainly no more insulting.

In fact, I would cite PT's response "I'm sorry, I don't think that beating your children is ok, but it's parents like you that have created the unruly, disrespecting, ungrateful, stupid little brats that are infesting this world now" as far more insulting than anything flav has posted thus far.

They all made the same obvious mistake. I've already pointed it out. Do I have to give a lecture on it?

Only problem here oli is that since none of the studies flav posted had their methodologies attached to them, there's no way you can possibly say whether or not their methods did in fact correctly isolated the intended variable.
If, nevertheless, you can point out where they went wrong in their methods, I'm sure flav will be only too happy to concede the invalidity of the respective study.

What you could say however is that since they don't agree with your own hypothesis, obviously they must be somehow faulty in their exceution. We would then be talking about cognitive dissonance and I think that's a large part of what flav is objecting to. I'm sure that isn't the case for the most part but the responses people have given aren't convincing of the contrary. As I mentioned above, with a proper criticism of the study rather than a simple blanket dismissal we would go a long way to eliminating the conflict.

[As a side note, studies submitted to an APA-associated journal are verified and judged both ethically and methodologically - it only gets published if the "judges" don't find anything critically amiss.]

In any case, obviously there is research that suggests that spanking is not good for children's mental health. Certainly there is also research (and perhaps more importantly, parental testimonies) that claims the contrary. Maybe less, maybe more, who knows? To blanket label all of it invalid is a little close-minded, whatever your viewpoint.
Taking the findings into account does not mean changing your mind to side with theirs. It means reflecting for a mintue or two on what that means for you and the child, and if in the end your parental experience with your own kids leads you to disagree with the findings, then so be it. It's your kids who will be the losers if you're wrong.

I personally believe spanking has more usefulness in terms of establishing limits, rather than punishment, but nevertheless it's going to be something that I leave open as an option. Yes it's my kids who will be the losers if I'm wrong, but it's also my kids who will be the winners if I'm right.

 

[outside looking in]

It's my opinion that democrats are pathetic Americans. Opinion, or insult?

 

[outside looking in]

And a13: I thought you were the stickler for making sure analogies were relevant. Comparing hitting children to cutting their heads off? Flowers to children? Are we really supposed to try and make some sense out of that one?

 

[a13antichrist]

It's my opinion that democrats are pathetic Americans. Opinion, or insult?

That is an insult. Because you said ".. are pathetic Americans". You will note that flav's statement is ".. is a pathetic excuse at parenting", not ".. are pathetic parents". As I said, his attack is on the METHOD USED, not on the people. That's too obvious to be said any other way.

My analogy is perfect - only difference is that no-body will debate that chopping heads off flowers is a pathetic excuse for gardening. The statement attacks precisely the same category of object - a way of doing something. The "cutting heads off" is not an analogy to spanking. It's an action you can do, just as is spanking, that may or may not be perceived as desirable depending on your point of view.

The analogy works because it is an analogy with the structure of his statement, not an attempt to argue on whether or not spanking is good.

Other equivalent statements are:

- "Robbing a bank is a great way to get rich."
- "Wearing shoes is a good way to avoid getting stung by bees."
- "Fucking interns is a pathetic attempt at governing."
- "Lying to the world about the existence of WMDs is a pathetic attempt at governing."
- "Plugging your new subwoofer into your arse is a pathetic attempt at installation."
- "Giving your gf a bar of chocolate is an pitiful attempt at seduction."
- "Buying your gf a diamond ring is an excellent method of seduction."
- "Supporting democrats is a pathetic attempt at patriotism."
- "Supporting democrats is an excellent way to display your patriotism."
- "Licking a camel's arse is a pathetic attempt to get laid."

I'm sure you're getting the idea by now. The statement is structured so: "[ACTION IN QUESTION] [PERSONAL EVALUATION] [INTENDED OBJECTIVE]". The only way you can get an insult out of that is to really, really, REALLY want there to be one.

 

[outside looking in]

I'm sorry a13, that just doesn't fly with me. If you call someone's driving pathetic, you are logically calling them a pathetic driver, at least for that given moment. If you call someone's gardening pathetic, you are saying they are a pathetic gardener, so long as they continue chopping heads off of flowers. How you can possibly draw any other conclusion is completely foreign to me. The methods you use to do something defines your ability to do that thing... if your methods of operating on patients are pathetic, you are a pathetic surgeon.

What difference does it make if I say "Being a democrat is a pathetic attempt at being an American?" You're trying to take a minor issue of semantics and argue a point with it. I'm not falling for it.

flav loves doing precisely this - make a grossly inflammatory statement and pretend he didn't really mean it that way. Oh... poor poor flav. One of flav's favorite members used to follow this exact approach... LL.

 

[outside looking in]

And about your analogy... my comments were obviously directed at its content, not structure. Nice red herring there.

 

[a13antichrist]

What difference does it make if I say "Being a democrat is a pathetic attempt at being an American?" You're trying to take a minor issue of semantics and argue a point with it. I'm not falling for it.

Heh you know, it's funny, I almost posted precisely that example but then decided it didn't work. Difference here is that you're criticising not an action, but a state of being. States of being are directly related to individuals, whereas actions are not.
I'll concede that if one were looking for a way to be offended, one might have been able to find it in his statement. If you or Prof or I had posted that, or one of my examples above, I would be willing to gaurantee that no-one would have taken it as an insult.
It's not flav directly that annoys people, it's your expectations of him. And so you interpret what you read to fit with your expectations. As I said above, Cognitive Dissonance.

I'm sorry a13, that just doesn't fly with me. If you call someone's driving pathetic, you are logically calling them a pathetic driver, at least for that given moment. If you call someone's gardening pathetic, you are saying they are a pathetic gardener, so long as they continue chopping heads off of flowers. How you can possibly draw any other conclusion is completely foreign to me. The methods you use to do something defines your ability to do that thing... if your methods of operating on patients are pathetic, you are a pathetic surgeon.

If you say "your driving is pathetic", then yes, you're calling them a pathetic driver. If you say "your parking is pathetic" you're NOT calling them a pathetic driver. Parking is ONE area of driving, just as Discipline is one area of Parenting. If someone judges your method of discipline to be amiss, he has nevertheless made no comment whatsoever on your overall competence as a parent. You might make 37 non-pathetic attempts and 1 pathetic attempt (the smack) in any given day. 37-1 is good evidence of sound parenting.
If your methodS of opertaing on patients are pathetic, then yeah, you're a pathetic surgeon. Nobody is concluding you're a pathetic surgeon on the sole basis that you don't understand the physiology of the leg. Lacking, maybe, but hardly pathetic.
If someone says chopping heads off flowers is pathetic, they've made no comment whatsover on your abilities as a weeder or vegetable grower or even flower-nurturer so that they were able to have heads in the first place - all of which would have to be taken into account before you can make ANY judgement on the person's gardening as a whole. Criticising ONE ASPECT of somebody's gardening or driving or surgery or eating or parenting is still making no judgement of your overall quality as a gardener or driver or surgeon or guest or parent.

 

[a13antichrist]

And about your analogy... my comments were obviously directed at its content, not structure. Nice red herring there.

That's precisely what I pointed out. The analogy was to its structure, not its content, which is why you failed to see the analogy. In the examples I posted above, no-one reading them is trying to find a connection between spanking and robbing banks or licking camels' arses (at least, I hope not).
The analogy to the structure is perfectly valid. Your comments directed at its contents are irrelevant for precisely that reason.

 

[outside looking in]

So at first it was that addressing the methods, not the individual, prevented it from being insulted. Now it's that only one of the many methods were addressed, so it's not insulting. Whatever; of course I was wrong, how could I have ever thought otherwise.

Unfortunately, flav didn't word his first post nearly so innocuously. Read it. It's a generalization lumped on top of a generalization. What he intended is quite clear.

Heh you know, it's funny, I almost posted precisely that example but then decided it didn't work. Difference here is that you're criticising not an action, but a state of being. States of being are directly related to individuals, whereas actions are not.

More semantic red herrings. "Being a child hitter is a pathetic attempt at being a parent." Please.

It can be reworded endlessly to suit any argument you wish to make, but the content and intent are clear. Stop with this unproductive attempt to obstruct the obvious on silly semantic grounds.

It's not flav directly that annoys people...

And you would ignore the large body of direct evidence to the contrary? Ah... not very "flav" of you, now is that?

 

[outside looking in]

That's precisely what I pointed out. The analogy was to its structure, not its content, which is why you failed to see the analogy. In the examples I posted above, no-one reading them is trying to find a connection between spanking and robbing banks or licking camels' arses (at least, I hope not).
The analogy to the structure is perfectly valid. Your comments directed at its contents are irrelevant for precisely that reason.

I didn't "fail to see" anything, I simply thought it was dangerous to use such context. From your subsequent posts, I can see that was unintentional.

Analogies carry more information than just structure, at least to me, and at least in some cases... witness flav's reference of domestic abuse. Analogies can refer to content or structure, or both, or possibly even something else. My first comments along those lines were more in the tone of "be careful" than "how dare you."

 

[a13antichrist]

So at first it was that addressing the methods, not the individual, prevented it from being insulted. Now it's that only one of the many methods were addressed, so it's not insulting. Whatever; of course I was wrong, how could I have ever thought otherwise.

Not first or second or now or then, but simply that BOTH of them prevent the interpretation as an insult. If I posted two counter-arguments it's because you tried to find two different ways to label it as an insult.

More semantic red herrings. "Being a child hitter is a pathetic attempt at being a parent." Please.

Where we disagree is that I don't consider this to mean the same thing, the same way that I don't consider "parking over two spaces is a pathetic attempt at driving" to be synonomous with "Your driving sucks", or more precisely "being a park-over-two-spaces-er is a pathetic attempt at being a driver". What if someone says they thought you were dishonest? Does that mean that they're automatically telling you you're a bad person? No. It takes more than one bad trait to make a bad person, and it takes more than one personal criticism to conclude that that person is calling you a bad person. And it takes a more than a criticism of one aspect of your parenting to conclude that someone is calling you a bad parent. At least that's the way I see it - it's a criticism, but not an insult. I know a lot of people have problems accepting criticism and thereby feel insulted at the slightest word against them. For me a criticism is a criticism and an insult is an insult. And personally, I find criticisms a good thing.

 

[outside looking in]

Sounds good. But flav didn't criticize a method, he insulted a group. He didn't use terms like "spanking, method, damaging, research, studies" or anything of the like. He used the terms "hitting, parenting, pathetic."

You can argue technical points of grammar and semantics until you're blue, and it won't change the content and intent of his statement. He chose his words to incite a specific response... the one I'm giving, and I'm done with it.

You and flav can now continue with the discussion of how hitting children makes you a pathetic parent.

 

[a13antichrist]

No we can't - as I've mentioned numerous times I am as in favour of spanking as flav is against it. Reason I started arguing his case was that I felt people weren't giving his case the credibility it deserved, merely because of who was posting it.

Sounds good. But flav didn't criticize a method, he insulted a group. He didn't use terms like "spanking, method, damaging, research, studies" or anything of the like. He used the terms "hitting, parenting, pathetic."

He criticised a way of behaving relating to parenting, pure and simple. If people were subsequently offended by that, that's another issue.

He chose his words to incite a specific response...

Even if he did, doesn't mean you have to play into his game. His point was to display his disagreement with spanking; if he did so in a manner deliberately intended to offend, all that's required is to take that into account and ignore the manner and focus on the message instead. Best way to piss people off that are trying to annoy you is simply to not get annoyed.

 

[outside looking in]

Reason I started arguing his case was that I felt people weren't giving his case the credibility it deserved, merely because of who was posting it.

Then you should have actually argued his case, not nitpicked my statements on silly and irrelevant semantic issues.

 

[a13antichrist]

Then you should have actually argued his case, not nitpicked my statements on silly and irrelevant semantic issues.

Those silly and irrelevant issues are what's causing the entire problem between flav and everyone else. Part of arguing his case is acknowledging the credibilty and/or relevance of his statements, something that no-one else was willing to do for no other apparent reason other than the fact that it was flav that was posting them.

 

[outside looking in]

Once again, nice diversion. I'm done with this.

 

[a13antichrist]

Whatever you have to tell yourself..