Spare the Rod.

JimiTime

Go to Hell.

First of all, my apologies for my accusation and implication. It wasn't nice, and I jumped the gun. May I rather flip flop on my rather unfortunate first post to you and instead extend a welcome to the forum.:o

flja wrote: »

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Then explain what this corrective rod is.

In the simplest of terms, a child who is unresponsive to the authority of its parents, needs, for their sake, something which gives them discipline. It does not 'have' to be a slap on the hand, but rather something that makes the child respect the parents authority and be obedient. An example:

A child who respects the authority of his parents will respond to 'Stop, don't go any further'.
A child who doesn't may not. No biggie in isolation. However, put that in the context of being near a busy road.

Since when does God make assumptions?

That was sarcasm on my part. You were equating parental correction, with crime and punishment.

The rod discussed in Proverbs is not meant to cause physical pain or humiliation of any kind.

Indeed, that is not its intention at all. It is meant to provide discipline, respect. Its motive is to teach and correct.

God did not regulate the use of physical force on children because He does not approve the use of physical force on children.

You say in your other post that you had an abusive upbringing. If this is so, then my sympathies. It is truly awful that such things happen. However, there's a world of a difference between abuse, and a child getting a slap on the wrist for misbehaving or being disobedient. It is unwise to equate the two, but all too often the victims of abusive upbringings find it hard to differentiate. IMO, this is part of the scar left by such an upbringing.

robindch

flja wrote: »

But in retrospect I don’t see the behavior of the students as their fault. All of them had been diagnosed with a learning disability of some sort or another, i.e., most of then were lazy brats who made no effort to do their school work. Most of them had divorced parents. Most were being raised with no father around most of the time. [...] If you put a child in this kind of environment, can you blame the child if he turns out to be a brat?

Bratty kids are, in my experience, far more often the result of inept and crappy parenting than having one or other parent absent, and the same goes for my experience of teachers and teaching. Once somebody thinks they've to start using physical force to assert their opinions, whether concerning the "authority" they feel they're due or anything else, they've lost the battle entirely.

Respect is something that's earned and not something that's beaten, shouted or lectured into people.

A similar thread is currently open in A+A here.

.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Once somebody thinks they've to start using physical force to assert their opinions, whether concerning the "authority" they feel they're due or anything else, they've lost the battle entirely.

I really hope that that was not remotely directed at what I posted Robin, because if it is I can only sigh at your inability to understand basic English. If its not, then don't mind me, Nothing to see here.

Respect is not something that's beaten, shouted or lectured into people.

Completely agree.

flja

PDN wrote: »

In that case it's probably good that you're not in that position any more.

By some counts 60% of the people who were subject to child abuse end up being child abusers themselves. However, there is no hard and fast dividing line between discipline and abuse. Legal standards exist in some situations, but these standards cannot take every parent-child or teacher-student situation into account. The only safe thing we can do is eliminate the mindset whereby adults believe it is OK for them to use physical force against a child. Because physical discipline against children can too easily lead to child abuse, I cannot fathom that any just and righteous, let along loving, God would ever condone using physical discipline on children.

flja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Quite aside from the fact that we are animals (in the order of primates), it is blindingly clear that PDN was using it as a comparison.

Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Your line of thinking runs straight to Auschwitz.

Zombrex

flja wrote: »

Your line of thinking runs straight to Auschwitz.

Why do the "passionate" posters always use weird font configurations?

Flja are you posting from a 3rd party client?

flja

JimiTime wrote: »

First of all, my apologies for my accusation and implication. It wasn't nice, and I jumped the gun. May I rather flip flop on my rather unfortunate first post to you and instead extend a welcome to the forum.

Accepted.

In the simplest of terms, a child who is unresponsive to the authority of its parents, needs, for their sake, something which gives them discipline.

Discipline will never work when it is applied in the absence of respect and my respect must be earned. To this day my mother has no qualms about bragging to total strangers how she beat me as a child (her words, not mine). She insists that the best thing for a boy is a good healthy fear of his mama. The bitch that gave birth to me quickly forfeited my love and she has never been entitled to my respect. She is responsible for all of my faults and none of my qualities.

That was sarcasm on my part. You were equating parental correction, with crime and punishment.

Isn’t parental correction what supposedly prevents later crime and the need for punishment according to the advocates of physical discipline? If a parent thinks it is OK to hit their child as punishment that child will invariably be hit at some point for something he did not do. This destroys the parent-child relationship.

You say in your other post that you had an abusive upbringing. If this is so, then my sympathies. It is truly awful that such things happen. However, there's a world of a difference between abuse, and a child getting a slap on the wrist for misbehaving or being disobedient.

An abused child is incapable of seeing any difference. I have run into too many thugs and fools who abuse their children in the name of Biblical discipline when they don’t realize that they are repeating their own parents’ bad behavior.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I really hope that that was not remotely directed at what I posted Robin, because if it is I can only sigh at your inability to understand basic English.

You can return, unused, your sighs to your wallet, as I wasn't referring to you

My comment was directed towards people who think it's acceptable, in general, to assault children with the intent to cause pain, and especially those individuals who do so in order to assert the authority and respect they feel they're due -- essentially, assaulting kids to preserve their own vanity.

PDN

flja wrote: »

Legal standards exist in some situations, but these standards cannot take every parent-child or teacher-student situation into account. The only safe thing we can do is eliminate the mindset whereby adults believe it is OK for them to use physical force against a child.

That's a bit like arguing that the existence of police states mean that the only safe thing is to eliminate police forces altogether.

Corporal correction should never be used in frustration or anger, and, given my experience of teachers, I feel very uncomfortable with them having the power to physically correct other people's children.

Fanny Cradock

flja wrote: »

Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Your line of thinking runs straight to Auschwitz.

Can you explain how Genesis leads to Auschwitz?

It seems quite clear that you want my words to mean something that you can get pissed off at.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you explain how Genesis leads to Auschwitz?

I think his reference to Genesis, is that Man is above animals, and as such, comparing people to them...............

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

I think his reference to Genesis, is that Man is above animals, and as such, comparing people to them...............

Nah, I don't get it. We are part of the kingdom Animalia - we are animals. If we are talking about a colloquial use of the word animal, which refers to lower animals, then I fully accept that a human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of a dog, cat or a mouse.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nah, I don't get it. We are part of the kingdom Animalia - we are animals. If we are talking about a colloquial use of the word animal, which refers to lower animals, then I fully accept that a human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of a dog, cat or a mouse.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that he wasn't saying, 'Genesis leads to Auschwitz'.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that he wasn't saying, 'Genesis leads to Auschwitz'.

Yeah, I got you. That was directed at flja.

flja

robindch wrote: »

You can return, unused, your sighs to your wallet, as I wasn't referring to you

My comment was directed towards people who think it's acceptable, in general, to assault children with the intent to cause pain, and especially those individuals who do so in order to assert the authority and respect they feel they're due -- essentially, assaulting kids to preserve their own vanity.

Don’t most (all?) parents hit their children because some action on their children’s part causes embarrassment to the parent? If a parent has earned the child’s respect, then surely the child would want to please the parent because it is only natural that a child wants to give his parent unconditional love. Forfeiture of that love and failure to earn the child’s respect means that the child has no vested interest in pleasing the parent and no amount of physical force on the parent’s part will change this equation.

flja

PDN wrote: »

That's a bit like arguing that the existence of police states mean that the only safe thing is to eliminate police forces altogether.

In a civilized society we don’t allow cops to go around beating people. So why should we allow parents to use physical force against children?

Corporal correction should never be used in frustration or anger, and, given my experience of teachers, I feel very uncomfortable with them having the power to physically correct other people's children.

But this is exactly what happens and it illustrates the injustice that is inherent in corporal punishment. With no statutory law, with nothing in writing, it is left up to each individual adult to decide when, where and how a child can be hit on an individual basis. We don't allow kings or presidents or cops to be above the law and we don't allow kings, presidents or cops to make up the law as they go along, so why should parents, teachers or babysitters be given this privilege?

flja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you explain how Genesis leads to Auschwitz?

It seems quite clear that you want my words to mean something that you can get pissed off at.

Get off your high horse and pay attention to what you are actually reading and maybe you won’t appear to be such a fool.
I didn’t say that Genesis leads to Auschwitz. I said that your line of thinking that equates human beings with animals leads to Auschwitz. If humans are animals and Darwinism is true, then some humans must be better evolved than others, and the humans that are better evolved have a natural right to oppress and kill the humans that are not.

Fanny Cradock

I'm unsure what I've done to attract your anger.

robindch

flja wrote: »

Don’t most (all?) parents hit their children because some action on their children’s part causes embarrassment to the parent?

I'd imagine that a relatively high percentage of authoritarian/conservative parents will hit their kids for political reasons like that. However, I can't imagine any liberal parents doing that, either because they don't hit kids to start with (preferring other sanctions), or because they can engineer the situation so that hitting kids is pointless.

flja wrote: »

If a parent has earned the child’s respect, then surely the child would want to please the parent because it is only natural that a child wants to give his parent unconditional love.

Looks to me like you're taking certain christian beliefs about deity-worship and trying to apply these expectations to kids. This isn't appropriate, since parents are not deities, kids are not (or shouldn't be treated as) religious believers, and an expectation of love isn't going to much to help it appear.

The following thought seems appropriate here:

A Good Proverb wrote:

If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was. We do not possess anything in this world, least of all other people. We only imagine that we do. Our friends, our lovers, our spouses, even our children are not ours; they belong only to themselves. Possessive and controlling friendships and relationships are as harmful as neglect.

robindch

flja wrote: »

If humans are animals and Darwinism is true, then some humans must be better evolved than others, and the humans that are better evolved have a natural right to oppress and kill the humans that are not.

Have you ever considered that you may not understand biology and that your evident hatred of it stems directly from that failure to understand?

flja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm unsure what I've done to attract your anger.

You have wasted my time by claimimg that I said something that clearly I did not say. If I haven’t made myself clear, then say so and ask for clarification. But don’t try to make me defend or explain something that I did not actually say. I have arthritis too bad in my arms and shoulders to waste time conversing with people who won’t expend the time and effort necessary to pay attention to the contents of a conversation.

flja

robindch wrote: »

I'd imagine that a relatively high percentage of authoritarian/conservative parents will hit their kids for political reasons like that. However, I can't imagine any liberal parents doing that, either because they don't hit kids to start with (preferring other sanctions), or because they can engineer the situation so that hitting kids is pointless.Looks to me like you're taking certain christian beliefs about deity-worship and trying to apply these expectations to kids. This isn't appropriate, since parents are not deities, kids are not (or shouldn't be treated as) religious believers, and an expectation of love isn't going to much to help it appear.

The following thought seems appropriate here:

Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

flja

robindch wrote: »

Have you ever considered that you may not understand biology and that your evident hatred of it stems directly from that failure to understand?

That would be difficult considering I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University.

sonicthebadger*

flja wrote: »

I didn’t say that Genesis leads to Auschwitz. I said that your line of thinking that equates human beings with animals leads to Auschwitz. If humans are animals and Darwinism is true, then some humans must be better evolved than others, and the humans that are better evolved have a natural right to oppress and kill the humans that are not.

This can only be described as a flagrant misrepresentation of Evolutionary Biology.

Humans, like all living creatures currently alive, are equally "evolved". Evolved doesn't mean intelligent; compassionate; more "Godly"; or more worthy of anything. It only means "still surviving long enough to produce more of itself".

Evolution does not make judgements, Polar Bears are white because they need to hide in snow, not cause "white supremacy bear" killed off all the "less evolved" brown ones. Just as Grizzly Bears are brown cause guess what?! They don't live in snow! Both have had the same length of time to evolve and both are equally "evolved".

PDN

Please take all discussion of Creationism or Evolution to the Creationist mega-thread.

sonicthebadger*

PDN wrote: »

Please take all discussion of Creationism or Evolution to the Creationist mega-thread.

Apologies.

robindch

flja wrote: »

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University.

You should return it to them.

flja

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do the "passionate" posters always use weird font configurations?

Flja are you posting from a 3rd party client?

I generally use MS Word to write all of my posts so I can use the spell/grammar checker. I use 10 point Courier New font because it is easy on the eyes when looking at the computer display. Sometimes I will cut and paste whatever I am replying to and convert my entire reply to my preferred font. But the quote function here does not include the original material that the post you are quoting is replying to. Sometimes I cut and paste without first using the quote function. So it does not always happen that everything in my reply is in the same font.

flja

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

This can only be described as a flagrant misrepresentation of Evolutionary Biology.

Because it is not evolutionary biology, but rather social Darwinism.

Humans, like all living creatures currently alive, are equally "evolved".

Biologists generally don’t like expressions such as higher organisms or more evolved since evolution is supposed to mean that an organism is adapted to the environmental conditions of its habitat; organisms that survive are better adapted to their habitat and thus better evolved than organisms that go extinct are. An organism evolves so it can adapt and no judgment call is supposed to be made or implied. Although in practice biologists usually do use these kinds of terms to compare one type of organism to another. Fanny Cradock did as much in post #43 when she mentioned “lower animals” in comparison to human beings.

And the idea that some organisms are better evolved than others do play a role in social Darwinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

“Social Darwinism is a pejorative term used in criticism of ideologies or ideas concerning their exploitation of concepts in biology and social sciences to artificially create political change that reduces the fertility of certain individuals, races, and subcultures having certain "undesired" qualities. It has very rarely been used as a self description.[1]

“The term first appeared in Europe in 1877[2] and was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter. Before Hofstadter's work the use of the term in English academic journals was quite rare.[3] The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents.[4][5]

“The term draws upon the common use of the term Darwinism, which has been used to describe a range of evolutionary views, but in the late 19th century was applied more specifically to natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin to explain speciation in populations of organisms. The process includes competition between individuals for limited resources, popularly known as "survival of the fittest", a term coined by |sociologist] Herbert Spencer.

“While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.”

Darwin’s (or should that be Wallace’s?) idea did, however, give a scientific veneer of respectability to the ideas that eventually went into social Darwinism.

“Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is also linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. In fact, Spencer was not described as a social Darwinist until the 1930s, long after his death.[6]

“Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but considered the ideas of ‘hereditary improvement’ impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, Darwin was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.[7]

“In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and commented on the effects of this, while cautioning that hard reason should not override sympathy, and considering how other factors might reduce the effect:

“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.


’The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected[8].’”

“Nazi Germany's justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of ‘survival of the fittest’ as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the "stronger" person to prevail – ‘strength’ referring to ruthlessness and ambition.[22]“

flja

robindch wrote: »

You should return it to them.

Why? Because I don’t accept your dogma? And by the way, what education do you have as a scientist?