>What worked in cave man days is no longer workable.
Then what would you suggest?
I have no suggestion for the problem. There is no quick solution.
The only thing I can say about how things could become better is in one of two ways: By chance, or by education. Education starts (I think) with looking clearly at what is going on. That's all I try to do, and what I attempt to do with others.
>There is no quick solution.
That's a rational opinion. The appropriateness of spanking (since that's the topic of this thread) is situational, though I get the impression that too many people see it as a malicious beating rather than a means to bring attention to wrongdoing. I'm sure to get heat for this, but spanking a kid is just like smacking a puppy on the nose to train it. It's just painful enough to get their attention and inform them that they did something wrong. Assuming the requisite measure of intelligence they'll learn not to do it again.
Lack of training results in lack of experience, and hence, lack of discipline. It's better to learn these lessons early, so my opinion is that I should have the option of spanking my child if I feel it's needed.
>There is no quick solution.
That's a rational opinion. The appropriateness of spanking (since that's the topic of this thread) is situational, though I get the impression that too many people see it as a malicious beating rather than a means to bring attention to wrongdoing. I'm sure to get heat for this, but spanking a kid is just like smacking a puppy on the nose to train it. It's just painful enough to get their attention and inform them that they did something wrong. Assuming the requisite measure of intelligence they'll learn not to do it again.Lack of training results in lack of experience, and hence, lack of discipline. It's better to learn these lessons early, so my opinion is that I should have the option of spanking my child if I feel it's needed.
I'd wager that I've come across as thinking that spanking does no good, but I agree with you.
I was spanked, and I've spanked. While my spankings did me no harm, they probably did me some good. As someone pointed out earlier, there were not that many spankings, like maybe 5 or 6 of them for each of us in our childhood.
One of them was completely inappropriate, and I remember it to this day, but it was the exception. One of my syblings did something, and we were given a chance to confess. We all got a swack (with the belt) then asked "who did it" again, followed by another swack until one of us confessed. After after 3 swacks I took the heat in order to end them. I got 10 more, very painful. This was the only time any punishment went beyond 3 swacks. They were wrong, but hey, parents get to make mistakes too. My anger was for the lie, and was not directed at my parents. I was about 6.
While spanking probably did me some good, my spanking my boy did not seem to work at all. I gave it up when when I realized I was simply escalating the pain because it wasn't working. But then he has a very high tolerance for pain, while I did not.
So in my limited experience, sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. But there is no harm in trying, and as a parent you need to be able to excercise all reasonable options, and I agree that spanking is often reasonable. It won't however, be the only influence on how a child turns out.
Two words ;) :Spare the rod, spoil the child..
That is not just two words :)
It's not "just" two words.
It's
Two words
^ .... ^
1 ..... 2
Plus
a picture
and something else altogether.
Very well put, and I'd agree if the human condition were not so different from the other creatures. It's too easy to fall into the fallacy of comparing human behavior with that of the other creatures in an attempt to solidify a point.
Any other creature you can name has but one "way" of life, evolved even as they evolved. Although any given group of other creatures may be impacted by outside influences, they deal with "life" in exactly the same way that they have done from their beginnings. Lets call this behavior "evolved responses".
Such evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years. But humans have changed their conditions so radically and so quickly in the last 10,000 years that their thus evolved responses no longer are in sync with thier conditions. External change is not the same as evolution of the creature, human or otherwise.
What worked in cave man days is no longer workable. While such "taking charge" will work in some conditions, there are gad-zillions of other conditions which we are all subject to that work against our evolved responses.
We aren't raising our kids in caves, with maybe 20 to 10 tribe members. We are raising them in cities with 10s of thousands, or millions of tribe members.
Too many of us aren't "raising" our kids at all.
Cities with 10's of thousands have existed for thousands of years; cities of millions have existed for hundreds. And every last one of them, every race, culture, social order, economic system, "trained" their children to conform to society, NOT the other way around; until about 2 generations ago.
"Evolution" is what happened throughout the 10,000 years between those cave dwellers and a few generations ago.
What has happened this past few generations is NOT evolution; it is complete and total overhaul of every last bit of what DID evolve over the past 10,000 years. This was justified by a baseless assertion, not that cavemen did it wrong; but that EVERY SINGLE generation prior to this "enlightened" group was wrong.
If the objective is to "socialize" what you breed, then it does "work". But the "it's different now" rewrite hasn't worked.
Any "real" difference is incrimental, not total. THAT is "evolution".
Too many of us aren't "raising" our kids at all.
Cities with 10's of thousands have existed for thousands of years; cities of millions have existed for hundreds. And every last one of them, every race, culture, social order, economic system, "trained" their children to conform to society, NOT the other way around; until about 2 generations ago.
"Evolution" is what happened throughout the 10,000 years between those cave dwellers and a few generations ago.
What has happened this past few generations is NOT evolution; it is complete and total overhaul of every last bit of what DID evolve over the past 10,000 years. This was justified by a baseless assertion, not that cavemen did it wrong; but that EVERY SINGLE generation prior to this "enlightened" group was wrong.
If the objective is to "socialize" what you breed, then it does "work". But the "it's different now" rewrite hasn't worked.
Any "real" difference is incremental, not total. THAT is "evolution".
How fun.
Where do I start? You make my point for me: "What has happened this past few generations is NOT evolution; it is complete and total overhaul of every last bit of what DID evolve over the past 10,000 years. " (thanks)
And it is EXACTLY these "few generations" of which you speak in which the bulk of the changes have occurred.
Bob, you and I certainly weren't here ten thousand, or 2,000 or even 200 years ago, we really don't know how kids behaved in general, so we don't know how well parents did with their children in general. (I suspect they did better in the country than in those large cities you mention.)
But ... we do know that what has happened over the last few generations is NOT "evolution" in the sense that I believe you know I am using it: "a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
So I say we are simply not "equipped" (genetically / evolutionarily) to deal with this "complete and total overhaul of every last bit ... " (of everything we do, see and deal with) .. Changes that have occured in the last 60 or so years, while everything up to then was MUCH more like it had been for the preceeding few thousand years.
Now if we want to assume that there was perfection among the children of those living a few thousand years ago (and that's a real stretch) ... it's still a long way from there (let's say 2000 years ago) and here (after the changes that you acknowlege have happened over the last 2 generations.)
I'll grant you that cave dwellers evolved to city dwellers. But city dwellers have not had time to evolve to what's going on today.
So:
1. Do you really believe that the only influence on children that matters is that which their parents bring to bear upon them, that no other influences upon them determine how they act?
2. Do you really believe that what has occurred in the last 2 generations (I would count 3 actually) does not have any meaningful influence on the kids?
3. Do you really believe that parents CAN know what to do, given that they are being told what to do and what not to do by their goverment, the media, self-appointed experts, and their peers, and that all of that "advice" is pretty much split down the middle - pro or con on any given issue?
It's not "just" two words.
It's
Two words
^ .... ^
1 ..... 2Plus
a picture
and something else altogether.
Very good. I hadn't seen that.
How fun.
I'll grant you that cave dwellers evolved to city dwellers. But city dwellers have not had time to evolve to what's going on today.So:
1. Do you really believe that the only influence on children that matters is that which their parents bring to bear upon them, that no other influences upon them determine how they act?
2. Do you really believe that what has occurred in the last 2 generations (I would count 3 actually) does not have any meaningful influence on the kids?
3. Do you really believe that parents CAN know what to do, given that they are being told what to do and what not to do by their goverment, the media, self-appointed experts, and their peers, and that all of that "advice" is pretty much split down the middle - pro or con on any given issue?
I disagree. It IS NOT "completely" different. What has destroyed "American Culture" is the abandonment of principles and fundamental truths, claiming that everything is "different".
You speak specifically of human biological evolution. But Society and civilization have also evolved. But they are NOT completely different than they have ever been before.
SO:
1. "Only"? definitely not. PRIMARY, most significant, first authority? Absolutely. My parents knew a LOT more about what I was getting into. And it is harder to do that today. But it was also harder for my dad than it was for his dad; and so on. Cost of doing business. If you don't want to put in the work, rather than complain that it can't be done, DON'T HAVE KIDS. We were far more "important" factors in everything our parents did, than today. Now people want kids, but don't want to make the required sacrificies; that has never been the deal.
2. Do YOU really believe that WWII, the depression, WWI, expansion of the western U.S., the civil war, etc. DIDN'T have profound affects on those children? Did even one of those generations decide that they were powerless to raise their children? And some, in my opinion, had a far greater claim.
3. YES, parents CAN know what to do. Civilization could not POSSIBLY advance for 10,000 years if they couldn't. The "problem" is that they LET the government and others tell them how to do it "right" (and conveniently, always "easier"). And when it fails, it's someone or something else's fault. Making excuses for irresponsible parents is used to justify making it more difficult for those parents who are meeting their obligation to their children and the rest of us.
One example of problems caused, not fixed by "it's different":
You know why parents no longer have a right to even know about, let alone "approve" their 13 year old female CHILD having an abortion? Because it's "different".
Cut her hair and the parents can sue; perform invassive, "surgery" with moral, ethical, spiritual, legal and health implications, on a minor CHILD? It's different.
This has to be done because a couple fathers out of hundreds will abuse the daughter for getting pregnant; and in this unique case presumption of innocense and parental rights must be unjustly denied ALL fathers why? Because "this" is different.
It's NOT different. No one should be able to perform SURGERY on your daughter without your approval; PERIOD. Notification is not even negotiable. It ain't different.
Those fathers who genuinely abuse their daughters for this reason are no different than those who do it for other reasons or to their sons. It ain't different.
The "it's different" argument ultimately runs in circles anyway. Doing it the way that has always worked is prohibited, because it doesn't work. Damn near impossible to argue with logic like that.
Two words ;) :Spare the rod, spoil the child.
FWIW, to those who've taken the time to politely tell me otherwise, the SMILEY was put there out of facetiousness. Thanks for restraining yourselves all who figured this out.
No Bob, the it's different argument does not run in circles. It addresses the fact that differences are what they are - differences. You just don't think they matter.
Civilization has not advanced for 10,000 years. It is hardly appropriate to call neolithic man civilized.
All in my lifetime, just three generations:
I have watched this planet increase threefold in my short span here. I was 5 before the first transatlantic air cargo tranportation was established. I was 9 when the first transatlantic telephone cable was laid.
Just 10 years before I was born, there were only 200 televisions in use in the entire world. When I was born, maybe one in 25 homes in America had a TV (mine was not one of them) and you might remember the content, it was, well nothing compared to today. When I was 10 we still did not have tv, and that still was not uncommon. In my twenties I was making circuit boards for the first electronic - hand held calculators, and wrist watchs.
For the approximately 4 billion years preceding, there were no such things. Today I can talk instantly to virtually any point on the planet using a telephone I carry in my pocket. I can know within minutes of activity in every major population center on earth.
Of course WWI and WWII had profound influences on the children. But up to 50 years ago all wars were fought under very similar conditions, that is, the non-fighting citizens of the engaged countries were largely in the dark about what was going on, and why it was going on. In general, they heard only what the authorities wanted them to hear. People in unaffected countries were, well, largely unaffected.
The attitude towards war was immensely different for my parents than it was for my generation. Why? Because we saw the grisly details piped in to our homes every day, (something generations for the previous 10,000 years did not have the benefit of.)
Widespread, fast mass and personal communications allowed knowledge and opinions to be shared worldwide, which brought the implications of war and its politics to light that previously had been able to be glossed over. This profoundly changed how many people felt about war in general.
Previous generations had a "far greater claim" to the profound affects of war? I don't know, I wasn't there. I'd like to see what you mean by that.
But Those were people who largely believed in the wars they were fighting. Now we don't, or at least, we question it widely. So who is likely to be "more" negatively impacted by the profound tragedy of war - those who believe in it or those who are unsure of the need for, or the righteousness of it?
It sounds like you had good parents. But what they knew (and you learned) does not reflect what is known, or easily accomplished by parents today.
In my time, almost every home had a mom at home all day, there when the kids got home, there all summer long (except during the massive war efforts.)
Mom could be wise and compassionate, she wasn't being beaten up by the marketplace, competition, advertising, etc. etc. etc. Today the majority of moms have to think about their careers for 10 hours a day, then find time to raise a family wisely and compassionately. They have no time to chat over the back yard fence, they generally don't have grandma and grandpa to help provide wisdom. With the mobility that we have today there are many fewer extended families to help, people move around MUCH more than they did 60 years ago. What kid today can expect to grow up in one house, and see his grandkids visit family there?
I'm not whining. I did my best with my kids and accept my shortcomings along with my successes. But I'm no fool, I can see that no matter what I said to them, they saw 10 yr old kids getting blow jobs in the hallways, drug and guns in the lockers, and cell phones coming out at recess. I won't begin to provde the full list here. You apparently don't see these changes as profound, so telling you about it won't make a difference. But no generation before ours had those influences affecting their children.
No matter the influence I had on my kids ,they have seen and been influenced by things that are so far beyond what previous generations have ever experienced that it would take volumes to list them.
I have listened to the stories my father told, and I can imagine that his childhood was much like childhoods for ages before his. You should look closely at virtually any town today that was 20 miles from a larger city 50 years ago. They are not as they were. The life that existed there for hundreds of years is gone.
This is actually kind of funny, you say: "It's NOT different. No one should be able to perform SURGERY on your daughter without your approval; PERIOD. Notification is not even negotiable. It ain't different."
HUH? You make my point profoundly. You have confused what should be true with what is true. Kids can have abortions without telling their parents. How can they not be influenced by this? How can that not have deep implications. How can little Julie listen to her mom talk about unwanted pregnancy and hear what her mother heard from her mother? This is not even the tip of the iceburg.
Some parents are simply wise. Some are lucky. Some are not. For many more than you care to acknowlege, it does not matter which they are.
Huh?
Huh what?
The attitude towards war was immensely different for my parents than it was for my generation. Why? Because we saw the grisly details piped in to our homes every day, (something generations for the previous 10,000 years did not have the benefit of.)
Actually, there were several large differences:
1. Anti-war demonstrators were arrested as fifth-columnists in World War II. Protesting wars was considered to be treason in earlier wars.
2. The press was pressured to not report negatively about World War II. The government censored newsreels too. Since they had to go through customs to be shown in the US, government could control what came in to be shown.
3. News networks didn't exist until just before World War II, and television was not in general use until 1950. Customs can't stop airwaves from crossing borders.
4. The Hays Commission production code* forbade movies showing the bloodiness of war.
5. The use of conscription in the foreign-policy-driven wars in Korea and Vietnam changed public opinion.
6. Religion had not been removed from public schools. Christianity is not either pro-war or anti-war, and was the dominant religion taught in schools. Also, the belief in afterlife removes a lot of the fears of war. But after religion was removed from the schools, "scholars" became interested in Asian religions, including the following one:
7. The anti-war Baha'i religion was largely unknown in the US until the 1960s. It was mostly confined to Pakistan and India. It is the original source of the religion of Political Correctness.
The Baha'i religion, along with a few psychologists who pushed their personal beliefs, are the sources of the opposition to spanking.
-----
* The Hays production code required the following:
- No picture shall lower the moral standards of those who see it.
- The sympathy of the audience must never be aimed toward crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
- Correct standards of life shall be presented.
- Law shall not be ridiculed.
- Nudity and suggestive dances are prohibited.
- The ridicule of religion is forbidden.
- Ministers of religion shall not be represented as comic characters or villains.
- Showing illegal drug use is forbidden. Showing drunkenness is strongly discouraged.
- Methods of crime shall not be shown.
- No references to sexual perversion and venereal disease.
- No explicit depictions of childbirth or surgery.
- No language that is offensive to anyone.
- No dead bodies in view.
- No details of brutal killings.
- Revenge shall not be justified in contemporary settings.
- The sanctity of marriage and the home shall be upheld.
- Pictures shall not imply that low forms of sex relationship are accepted or common.
- Adultery and illicit sex shall not be explicit, justified, or presented as an attractive option.
- No portrayals of miscegenation.
- No prostitution or lustful scenes.
- The flag of the United States shall be treated respectfully.
- The people and history of other nations shall be presented fairly.
- Vulgarity shall be treated within the dictates of good taste.
- Capital punishment, third-degree methods, and cruelty to children and animals shall be handled within the dictates of good taste.
Some of the Hays production code got cut off by the stupid time limit:
- Defeat of the law shall not be depicted.
- No toilets or body discharges.
- No showing the inside of a human thigh.
- No machine guns, except in war pictures.
Thirty minutes is NOT enough time when transferring information from various sources!!!! Remember that the edit window CLEARS when you visit another website to get info. So you have to save and then edit to add each new piece of information.
What I believe is now completely different is our expectations.
Brian, you see 13 year old children "acting" imancipated as a result, caused by it's social acceptance (at least by sufficient concensus). I see parents allowing this to happen as a result, caused by a critical mass of parents who refuse to accept responsibility for the result of excercising those reproductive "rights" they claim.
What is different is that for (I believe) the first time in history, a significant portion of those breeding would rather not know if their daughter got pregnant.
Tell the folks what either one of OUR dads would have done if they found out someone performed an abortion on their little girl without telling them? You know damn well that legalization would not have saved that doctor.
The "differences" you speak of did not happen TO us; they were corrupted BY us.
Some of the Hays production code got cut off by the stupid time limit:
- Defeat of the law shall not be depicted.
- No toilets or body discharges.
- No showing the inside of a human thigh.
- No machine guns, except in war pictures.Thirty minutes is NOT enough time when transferring information from various sources!!!! Remember that the edit window CLEARS when you visit another website to get info. So you have to save and then edit to add each new piece of information.
Two suggestions:
- Compose your response in an external text editor and paste it as needed to preview or submit.
- Use tabbed browsing for looking up any other info you need.
Wow. That was good stuff. Thanks for your insight.
What I believe is now completely different is our expectations.
Brian, you see 13 year old children "acting" imancipated as a result, caused by it's social acceptance (at least by sufficient concensus). I see parents allowing this to happen as a result, caused by a critical mass of parents who refuse to accept responsibility for the result of excercising those reproductive "rights" they claim.
What is different is that for (I believe) the first time in history, a significant portion of those breeding would rather not know if their daughter got pregnant.Tell the folks what either one of OUR dads would have done if they found out someone performed an abortion on their little girl without telling them? You know damn well that legalization would not have saved that doctor.
The "differences" you speak of did not happen TO us; they were corrupted BY us.
Yes, our dads would have shot the doctor, dead. No question. And in my opinion, that would have been "right." Still no question, for me. And it is still just as dispicable today. That has not changed. The sort of morality that we are discussing does not yield to, or change with the times.
And I understand what you mean by "BY us", yes, of course it is people who "allow" these things to happen, and certainly it is preceeding generations who set the stage for generations to follow.
But "We" did not, could not possibly have foreseen the affect that (just) the transistor would have on the general populace.
"We" have alsways been profit driven, and there was a profit to be made, We have always gone for the profit first and considered the repercussions after the fact. Remember DDT? Can you see an analogy in gene splicing and the possibly devastating effect it is having on the varieties of grains that are now growing vs just a few decades ago?
There is a profit to be made in genetic research, and damn the consequences, until they become grossly apparent. It has always been thus.
In fact, I could make a grand case against the automobile, for the implications they have to society. In spite of those who spoke out against the horseless carriage, there was a profit to be made, and now we are stuck with the repercussions of a society that is so mobile that it has no "roots" any longer. Good? Bad? Depends on how you think of it.
What I know is this: Man will act as man acts, and the consequences often end up biting him in the ass. But it isn't his "fault" ... unless you want to go back all the way to, say, the invention of fire? Or, maybe the use of a stone as a crude knife? Because, once started, "progress" can't be stopped.
And progress creates complexity that often has repercussions that go beyond the ability of individuals to cope with it.
I cannot shoot the doctor today and expect to live in freedom. Fifty years ago, I could have. Our daughters know that, so our discussion on the subject of sex has become more convoluted. We can preach (sexual) morality, but the fact is, sex is an urge with repercussions that are not today what they were 50 years ago.
I know a woman that had an abortion 20 years ago. Weighing her morality against the issues of starting an unwanted family, it seemed the lesser of two evils. She found out the hard way that she was wrong.
All this time later, she still cannot love herself, and this lack of love permeates every aspect of her being, and her relationships. She's a hard person to live with because she cannot forgive others, having never learned to forgive herself.
The choice was there for her and she did what she sincerly thought was right. Twenty years earlier she might have refrained from sex altogether because the option was not available, the message was clearer. Or, she would have had the child. Either way, her life would not be devastated as it is today.
But she is a very moral woman, no less so than her mother. She was simply influenced by a different set of circumstances, and the choice became harder.
How fun.
I know a woman that had an abortion 20 years ago. Weighing her morality against the issues of starting an unwanted family, it seemed the lesser of two evils. She found out the hard way that she was wrong.All this time later, she still cannot love herself, and this lack of love permeates every aspect of her being, and her relationships. She's a hard person to live with because she cannot forgive others, having never learned to forgive herself.
I am sorry to hear this, sincerely. It is obvious that she is someone you care enough about that you hurt as well.
It's not that I think she is a bad person; actually the opposite. And I will pray (hope this doesn't offend) that she finds a way to accept herself, including the mistakes. I haven't found it easy to accept some of my own.
But having a conscience requires that some decisions be "struggled" with. We've been avoiding the struggle by shedding our conscience. I can't stop it, but I think it will cost us more than we realize.
I am sorry to hear this, sincerely. It is obvious that she is someone you care enough about that you hurt as well.
It's not that I think she is a bad person; actually the opposite. And I will pray (hope this doesn't offend) that she finds a way to accept herself, including the mistakes. I haven't found it easy to accept some of my own.
But having a conscience requires that some decisions be "struggled" with. We've been avoiding the struggle by shedding our conscience. I can't stop it, but I think it will cost us more than we realize.
She struggled. She lost. Not for lack of morals or a moral upbringing, but for the times she was in and her inability to comprehend the scope of her decision. She would have had no such opportunity to make the poor choice 40 years earlier.
And I must stress this, it wasn't her parents who failed her.
I'll tell you what failed her in a nutshell: "Womens Lib" ... before anyone think I'm against equality for women, heaven forbid, I am not.
But the movement created a sense in millions of young people that career was very very important, and that families could, and should be "planned" ... and that means abortion. Although unidentified at the time, the movement was a stronger force in her life than her parents could bring to bear with their moral instruction, and to her young mind it made sense. Now, 20 years later, .. Opps, it's been 30 years now ... that morality has wreaked havoc on her quality of life.
[Don't even get me started on what happened with Womens Lib. It was a great concept that was hugely mis directed in its implementation, and again, my thoughts don't end there.]
She struggled. She lost. Not for lack of morals or a moral upbringing, but for the times she was in and her inability to comprehend the scope of her decision. She would have had no such opportunity to make the poor choice 40 years earlier.
And I must stress this, it wasn't her parents who failed her.
I'll tell you what failed her in a nutshell: "Womens Lib" ... before anyone think I'm against equality for women, heaven forbid, I am not.
But the movement created a sense in millions of young people that career was very very important, and that families could, and should be "planned" ... and that means abortion. Although unidentified at the time, the movement was a stronger force in her life than her parents could bring to bear with their moral instruction, and to her young mind it made sense. Now, 20 years later, .. Opps, it's been 30 years now ... that morality has wreaked havoc on her quality of life.
[Don't even get me started on what happened with Womens Lib. It was a great concept that was hugely mis directed in its implementation, and again, my thoughts don't end there.]
Amen. But buying into a lie is only "moral" failing if you sell yourself the crap. At least Joe Camel is subject to truth in advertising.
They also deny the choices which MUST be made; as your friend discovered.
"Why can't I have everything?" does have a response; even if you don't want to hear it.
Amen. But buying into a lie is only "moral" failing if you sell yourself the crap. At least Joe Camel is subject to truth in advertising.
They also deny the choices which MUST be made; as your friend discovered.
"Why can't I have everything?" does have a response; even if you don't want to hear it.
It would seem that I see more shades of grey than you. (In addition, color.) People just don't generally "see" in black and white. They can be trained to, but it's not all that common. I can usually, but not always, but I'm driven to look for it.
I recognize "how" others see things, and that it's often different from how you or I see it. Moreover, I see why this is so, and accept it as simply part of the "human condition."
It explains "misunderstanding" much more often than most people realize. Generally they simply believe themselves to be right, and the other guy to be wrong. "You're right from your side, and I'm right from mine" has no meaning to many. In this case, I am applying the notion of "right" to the fact that we each have a point of view that is supported by what we have experienced and learned.
The problem is that all to often we don't want to look further than our own point of view.
Simple answer Yes.
But it also depends on the situation and place. If I'm in public then I will avoid spanking my kid. I also tell him why I need to spank him and he (3.5 years old) usually undertand and accept it.
Now I was thinking, it looks like he's not afraid getting spank anymore :(
If I'm in public then I will avoid spanking my kid.
If I'm in public, I'll do the same as "in private". This helps them not misunderstand that bad behavior is bad behavior. Otherwise, a distinction is made. And I find that making the distinction it not entirely to the benefit of either party.
Simple answer Yes.
But it also depends on the situation and place. If I'm in public then I will avoid spanking my kid. I also tell him why I need to spank him and he (3.5 years old) usually undertand and accept it.
Now I was thinking, it looks like he's not afraid getting spank anymore :(
As you probably have determined, if he's not afraid of being spanked, then it's time to abandon the practice.
It would seem that I see more shades of grey than you. (In addition, color.) People just don't generally "see" in black and white. They can be trained to, but it's not all that common. I can usually, but not always, but I'm driven to look for it.
I recognize "how" others see things, and that it's often different from how you or I see it. Moreover, I see why this is so, and accept it as simply part of the "human condition."
...The problem is that all to often we don't want to look further than our own point of view.
I've taken a breath for some intra on your spective. I also recognize that we have wandered beyond sight of spanking.
However, I am enjoying this, now rare, attempt at reasoned, logical exploration in search of illusions; mine as well as yours. So, a request. If (when, more likely) we are invited to cease, may I send you a P.M. to arrange continuation?
Now, more of what I think, about what you think. I believe we both see a complex, "multi"-plexed range of shades and colors. But, society does not "function" and people do not coexist, peacefully, unless their are rules and standards; and these do not "function" unless they delineate the shades we will consider black and those we will treat as white. What can not be done, and what must be done. Every "shade" we attempt, multiplies disagreement and conflict. Personally I want the fewest possible musts and can'ts, and the greatest individual liberty that functions and makes sense.
I also "recognize" how others see things differently; but many "see" a difference between how wrong it is to assualt someone for being black/gay/spanish/etc. and assaulting me to take my wallet; they are wrong, and I am not going to simply accept it. Many are happy to "see" a difference between whether Connor Peterson's life is terminated by Scott or Lacy. For him, it's a second murder charge. For her, it's medical treatment to remove the equivalent of a wort (I am not defending Scott. I am defending a coherent understanding of justice); whether it's tissue or a person CAN'T be a "personal choice". In other words, some "points of view" shouldn't be accomodated.
On another couple of points; I've come to agree with one of your theories, though not exactly as you apply it. The current, and scary, autism rates support your idea that our genetic evolution is lagging environmental change. But I would also like to ask that you reconcile your diagnosis of over crowding with Japan's FAR greater crowding but none of the anti-social results you believe it causes?
Now, more of what I think, about what you think. I believe we both see a complex, "multi"-plexed range of shades and colors. But, society does not "function" and people do not coexist, peacefully, unless their are rules and standards; and these do not "function" unless they delineate the shades we will consider black and those we will treat as white. What can not be done, and what must be done. Every "shade" we attempt, multiplies disagreement and conflict. Personally I want the fewest possible musts and can'ts, and the greatest individual liberty that functions and makes sense.I also "recognize" how others see things differently; but many "see" a difference between how wrong it is to assualt someone for being black/gay/spanish/etc. and assaulting me to take my wallet; they are wrong, and I am not going to simply accept it. Many are happy to "see" a difference between whether Connor Peterson's life is terminated by Scott or Lacy. For him, it's a second murder charge. For her, it's medical treatment to remove the equivalent of a wort (I am not defending Scott. I am defending a coherent understanding of justice); whether it's tissue or a person CAN'T be a "personal choice". In other words, some "points of view" shouldn't be accomodated.
On another couple of points; I've come to agree with one of your theories, though not exactly as you apply it. The current, and scary, autism rates support your idea that our genetic evolution is lagging environmental change. But I would also like to ask that you reconcile your diagnosis of over crowding with Japan's FAR greater crowding but none of the anti-social results you believe it causes?
One of the issues I have with "morality" today parallels what you have outlined here. It so often is tied up in whether it suits the individuals personal desires. As an example, programmers in general are "up in arms" about piracy.
While I agree that piracy is an easy position to make a case against, most of these same people are all too willing to break other laws that are just as easy to defend.
If your challenge them on that level they "cut and run". It is in their interest to care about piracy, but speeding, which kills and in other ways exacts a toll upon all of us, is a non-issue... they want to get where they are going faster, so they speed. Likewise, they cheat on their taxes, again, exacting a toll on society, yet that's justified or just "part of the game" ... after all, we all know "the government" is a group of liars, cheats and theives, so it's okay to fudge a bit. The fact that schools or national parks might suffer does not figure in to their thinking.
Yes, society falls apart when rules are broken. But every society is an experiment, no more. when the rules stop working, it breaks down and another one springs up. There is absolutely no "natural law" that says that mans law must be honored simply because a large group wish it so.
There is undoubtedly a framework of moral behavior from which we may all look at our behavior and decide what should or should not be allowed. If this was what we were doing we would have a chance. But it is not. People are minding everybody elses business, and making decisions they have no understanding of.
We are passing laws in order to control behavior based upon the wishes of society, but not according to moral law.
People tend to think exactly about social issues such as spanking, or piracy, or taxes, or ... what have you ... in exactly the same way they think about food. Not to much depth.
Man is simply trying to make it work. He just doesn't know how. And I'll go so far as to say that is because he does not know how to think. Literally, he does not know how to spend the time necessary to dissect an issue until there is no further thinking that can be brought to bear upon it. This requires a lot of work. There's not enough of it going around.
People love to argue ... until you ask them to re-think the underpinnings of their position.
It is a natural law that you cannot create a sound structure (that will stand the test of time) upon a faulty foundation. Because our foundation is faulty, our system will eventually collapse. I believe we are simply seeing that collapse. We are not doing the difficult work that is required to fix the foundation.
Finally, back to spanking.
Interestingly, spanking made me stop and think, perhaps more than a reasoned explanation might have. After all, talk is easy to "let go in one ear and out the other"' but being spanked is a "heads up" that your parents want you to reconsider your position. After the spanking it was natural for me, not to harbor misgivings about my parents, but to question why they spanked me, and whether it was justified. It caused me to think deeply about what I'd done and what had been expected, and whether this was right or wrong. It caused me to engage in silent reflection.
Maybe I'd been "told" and had it "explained to me" quite enough, and it was time to use spanking to get me to think about it.
Now, about Japan. You make me think with that one. I have no experience in thinking about Japan, never having been there, never having talked to anyone about it.
How about this? Japan has a history of centuries of behavioural programming, America is a very young country. Japan has been living a crowded life for centuries, and has developed cultural manners that allow this to occur. There simply is no "room" for people to "act out" as they can do in this country. Japan has a lot less of a mix of races and cultures, and thus has a much stronger sense of cultural identity and cultural response to events.
Even though they undoubtly feel the same pressure as do we, they know how to live in close proximity to others. Their experience of living in close physical proximity has prepared them for the shrinking of the world.
Eh?
I wonder if they have laws against spanking there? I wonder if they spank at all? A google on "spanking in japan" shows me that some of Asian descent are thinking about it as well.
Oh hey you guys are still at it.
Cute...
Spank all politicians.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.