Spare the rod . . .

@sozobe,

Quote:

So you say, but it's pretty ipse dixit. Do you have anything objective to point to, here?

Only my anecdotal experience. I don't expect anyone else to be swayed by that, but I'm sure you can understand how it has shaped my beliefs.

Quote:

However you now say you don't agree specifically -- you agree metaphorically. You think all kids need discipline. We agree there (and there was never any disagreement. We've all said the same thing).

I agree both metaphorically AND specifically. The problem is that you are seeking to define the term 'spare the rod..' so narrowly as to change the argument that I am making, which isn't really a correct thing to do.

Please understand that I understand your position completely, even if I don't agree with it; I would only hope that others would do the same with me. I think the idea that 'spanking=hitting=beating=whipping' is a gross exaggeration and it is incorrect to claim that those who defend corporal punishment are advocating unlimited violence towards children.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree both metaphorically AND specifically.

How does that work? What does it mean in practice? Do you agree with "spare corporal punishment and spoil the child" or not?

1 Reply

I really don't understand how someone could look at their child (or anyone else they love, for that matter) and think hitting them is a good idea and I've dealt with some mind-numbing kid weirdness.

Stuff gets broken.... big frikken deal.

This kid in the story is 8. My kid is 8. If he forgets to tell me something he isn't being malicious, or evil, or disobedient, he's being 8.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

it is incorrect to claim that those who defend corporal punishment are advocating unlimited violence towards children.

Good thing no one here claimed that, then.

Sure would make a convenient strawman, though....

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree both metaphorically AND specifically.

How does that work? What does it mean in practice? Do you agree with "spare corporal punishment and spoil the child" or not?

It means that I agree with the statement whether you choose to look at 'the rod' metaphorically or literally. I think I've made it perfectly clear that I believe that corporal punishment is appropriate in some circumstances, though I accept that others do not.

I don't think the phrase is so restrictive as to demand that my position be the opposite of those of many here; this is to say, that agreeing with the phrase 'spare the rod, spoil the child' does not mean that I believe that ALL parents who choose not to use corporal punishment, or ALL children who don't receive it will be spoiled in any fashion. Instead, I think it speaks to the larger point that parents must not be afraid to discipline/punish their kids when necessary.

It seems to me that there are several separate statements here - do I believe that failure to discipline ruins kids? Absolutely. Do I believe that corporal punishment is from time to time an appropriate from of punishment? Yup. So no matter how one interprets the phrase, I agree with it, unless one seeks to make it some sort of moral absolutism statement thing, which is rather ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I really don't understand how someone could look at their child (or anyone else they love, for that matter) and think hitting them is a good idea and I've dealt with some mind-numbing kid weirdness.

Stuff gets broken.... big frikken deal.

This kid in the story is 8. My kid is 8. If he forgets to tell me something he isn't being malicious, or evil, or disobedient, he's being 8.

On the contrary; the kid in the story didn't 'forget' anything. He lied to his parents about getting bad marks in school and according to the story, had been lying to them for some time about it. I think that is rather more severe then you are making it out to be.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Same where I worked, dys.

0 Replies

I can remember getting whacked by a 5th grade teacher. Got me across the back of the knees with a board. I can't remember what I thought about it when it happened.

Today that same teacher would be suspended and probably fired.

1 Reply

@Sglass,

Fired? She'd be lucky if the state didn't press charges and bring her into court.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It means that I agree with the statement whether you choose to look at 'the rod' metaphorically or literally.

If you agree with it literally then it says you must use corporal punishment or you will spoil your child, but elsewhere you say you don't think this is actually necessary. You seem confused, or the message is getting mixed up somewhere.

Quote:

Instead, I think it speaks to the larger point that parents must not be afraid to discipline/punish their kids when necessary.

That would be the metaphor, that nobody disagrees with you about. But you keep saying you also agree with it "specifically" or "literally" and that is what is confusing, because you don't seem willing to defend the statement literally either.

Quote:

It seems to me that there are several separate statements here - do I believe that failure to discipline ruins kids? Absolutely. Do I believe that corporal punishment is from time to time an appropriate from of punishment? Yup.

Ok, but where's the part where you "specifically" or "literally" agree with the statement? The statement says nothing about corporal punishment being appropriate from time to time, it says that failure to use it will spoil a child.

Quote:

So no matter how one interprets the phrase, I agree with it, unless one seeks to make it some sort of moral absolutism statement thing, which is rather ridiculous.

If you say you agree with it literally, and it literally says that failure to use corporal punishment spoils a child then it's not ridiculous at all to disagree with that "interpretation". You seem to want to be able to repeatedly say that you agree with it literally while never actually defending it literally. At that point you say it becomes a ridiculous exercise in absolutism. That's a pretty convoluted position dude. What literal agreement are you talking about if its literal meaning is "ridiculous" absolutism?

Maybe what you meant when you say that you agree with it "specifically" and "literally" is that you just agree with the general sentiment you get from it?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

If you say you agree with it literally, and it literally says that failure to use corporal punishment spoils a child then it's not ridiculous at all to disagree with that "interpretation"

Yes, it is. It is taking the phrase to it's absolute extreme in order to further an argument, which is a ridiculous choice to make.

Quote:

Maybe what you meant when you say that you agree with it "specifically" and "literally" is that you just agree with the general sentiment you get from it?

Whatever you like. I've made my beliefs on corporal punishment pretty clear in this thread and it's getting boring splitting hairs with people on this issue. I'm not trying to tell anyone that they are right or wrong for believing whatever the **** they want to believe about what is the right or wrong way to raise a child; I can only relate my personal beliefs and experiences, which is that Corporal punishment is sometimes appropriate and the failure to apply it is probably as dangerous for a kid as the over application of it.

Here,

Quote:

What literal agreement are you talking about if its literal meaning is "ridiculous" absolutism?

I agree with the phrase without agreeing that it is necessary for ALL children to be given corporal punishment; however, those children whose actions merit it, deserve it and should get it. This really isn't a difficult logical construction to figure out. The phrase isn't 'any child on whom you spare the rod, will be spoiled.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, it is. It is taking the phrase to it's absolute extreme in order to further an argument, which is a ridiculous choice to make.

It's not some ridiculous extreme, it's just the literal meaning of the statement. You said you agree with it "literally" so why do you consider it extreme to be asked to defend it's literal meaning?

Quote:

I agree with the phrase without agreeing that it is necessary for ALL children to be given corporal punishment; however, those children whose actions merit it, deserve it and should get it. This really isn't a difficult logical construction to figure out.

In other words, you simply don't agree with it "literally" but instead of retracting that claim you prefer to call it a ridiculous absolutism to ask you about the literal meaning you claimed to agree with.

1 Reply

I am in favor of spanking as a punishment/deterant. I think it should be a last resort, and only used after other methods (as have been discussed) have been employed, given time to work, and have failed.

If the child is misbehaving and all the other techniques that parents can employ have failed, spanking (or the threat of spanking) should be an option (legally) available to parents.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes, it is. It is taking the phrase to it's absolute extreme in order to further an argument, which is a ridiculous choice to make.

It's not some ridiculous extreme, it's just the literal meaning of the statement. You said you agree with it "literally" so why do you consider it extreme to be asked to defend it's literal meaning?

It's your interpretation of the 'literal meaning' of the statement. I apparently have a different interpretation of the literal meaning - that those kids who engage in bad enough behaviors should be punished using corporal punishment, not that ALL kids should, or they will be ruined.

Quote:

Quote:
I agree with the phrase without agreeing that it is necessary for ALL children to be given corporal punishment; however, those children whose actions merit it, deserve it and should get it. This really isn't a difficult logical construction to figure out.

In other words, you simply don't agree with it "literally" but instead of retracting that claim you prefer to call it a ridiculous absolutism to ask you about the literal meaning you claimed to agree with.

[/quote]

No; I do agree with it literally, and have a different interpretation of what the literal meaning of the phrase is than you do.

BORING, unless you can come up with something more interesting to nitpick about, I'm done

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I am in favor of spanking as a punishment/deterant. I think it should be a last resort, and only used after other methods (as have been discussed) have been employed, given time to work, and have failed.

If the child is misbehaving and all the other techniques that parents can employ have failed, spanking (or the threat of spanking) should be an option (legally) available to parents.

I have realized that my position on spanking children is not dissimilar to my position on hitting adults. Your statement is true with adults too (think prison guard scenario):

"I am in favor of hitting people as a punishment or a deterrent, I think it should be used as a last resort, and only after other methods have been employed, given time to work, and have failed."

I also think that if more people saw it the same as hitting adults it'd be used more appropriately.

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's your interpretation of the 'literal meaning' of the statement. I apparently have a different interpretation of the literal meaning - that those kids who engage in bad enough behaviors should be punished using corporal punishment, not that ALL kids should, or they will be ruined.

The statement is simple and clear, if you'd rather twist the meaning than cede an inch have it your way.

0 Replies

There's a long history behind the "spare the rod" words.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin8.htm

It seems to me that most of that history shows that "rod" means beating, and that not beating is to spoil the child.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

"I am in favor of hitting people as a punishment or a deterrent, I think it should be used as a last resort, and only after other methods have been employed, given time to work, and have failed."

I'd be even a little more liberal with my threshold for hitting adults. You have to give children some leeway because they are still learning right from wrong, adults do not always deserve this leeway.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

This brings us about back to where we were in our previous discussion of this topic.

I'm not quite ready to say that it should NEVER be used. I can believe that there are some situations where corporal punishment might be the best choice for a given child.

But this formulation (corporal punishment as an ultimate punishment if nothing else works) is still too broad for me. I think that for many children, corporal punishment would not only be ineffective as a final attempt at discipline, but would be actually counterproductive.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

But this formulation (corporal punishment as an ultimate punishment if nothing else works) is still too broad for me. I think that for many children, corporal punishment would not only be ineffective as a final attempt at discipline, but would be actually counterproductive.

I didn't mean to say that I think spanking should be the last and final resort for punishment. I realize that even spanking may not correct the behavior. I DO NOT believe in those situations that escalating the corporal punishment is the answer either. I don't think spanking should escalate to beating if the behavior is not corrected.

I'm just opposed to those who think it should never be employed in a parents discipline plan.

0 Replies

Spare the rod . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know