NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wesh.com/news/15528862/detail.html

Is every form of child discipline we disagree with automatically child abuse?

Erm...I'd call a high-pressure water house child abuse myself...I mean, if you're going to punish someone with water, go for a squirt bottle, not a freaking meat cleaving hose...

EDIT: Ah...sweet original post stealing at last...

http://www.wesh.com/news/15528862/detail.html

Is every form of child discipline we disagree with automatically child abuse?

http://www.wesh.com/news/15528862/detail.html

Is every form of child discipline we disagree with automatically child abuse?

Car pressure hoses like that operate under high pressures, and from personal experience, can flay skin off your flesh at close range. Whether it's abuse or not depends on the pressure settings.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Also, governments are out of control too. In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies.

Not to sound assy (well, that's already blown), but parents would do better to learn something about raising kids from raising pets. As a kindergarten teacher who also has a just-turned-one-year puppy, I can attest to the striking similarities in raising and training a puppy and raising/teaching a kid.

Of course, a lot of people are awful to their pets, too. Really they should just be kinder, more patient and less emotional overall with both. Parents need to realize that children are neither mindless dolls nor miniature adults.

Nah that ain't right. Those things are harsh man. That woman needs a swift kick in her arse.. oh wait! maybe that's why she's doing this in the first place. :rolleyes:

Yeah right. The bitch is just mean.


" The girl was examined Thursday and a nurse found no bumps or bruises." No bruises? So the water was on idle? Like when it is when you aren't pressing the handle? Still not good, but not as bad as I first thought. I can't assume though. I dunno.

" The girl was examined Thursday and a nurse found no bumps or bruises." No bruises? So the water was on idle? Like when it is when you aren't pressing the handle? Still not good, but not as bad as I first thought. I can't assume though. I dunno.

With high pressure water using thin sprays like those found on car pressure hoses, you don't look for bumps and bruises. You look for lacerations.

Being sprayed with a hose is not the worse type of punishment I can think of...

With high pressure water using thin sprays like those found on car pressure hoses, you don't look for bumps and bruises. You look for lacerations.

Yeh but that hose can cut through fruit and bread not skin, otherwise we would have seen the child ripped up. The girl would have been battered around a bit so bruises is what you may look. A good spank on the bottom would have been better.

Where I used to work a group of contractors would come to clean the inside of storage bins and use high pressure to do the job, one day a workmate of mine accidently got his toes underneath the spray it was a good thing he was wearing steel capped boots becuase the water cut right through the thick leather opening up a thin line where you could see the steel, had it had hit him further up the boot it would have cut his foot off.

One article I read on MSNBC yesterday said that an employee heard the child screaming and she went to see what was going on. When she saw the mother spraying the child she went in looked at security tapes and then called police. It seems there is video of the mother screaming in Spanish at the child before spraying her. She had evidently peed in the car.

The tape was played over local stations in search of the mother, she later turned herself in to explain to police the situation. Police did confirm that the hose pressure is adjustable and it was not set at the 1200 lb limit it has.

Being sprayed with a hose is not the worse type of punishment I can think of...

A garden hose? Hardly. Not even a fireman's hose, which pushes enough water to literally knock a grown man over, although you could drown people that way.

But pressure hoses like this focus the spray to a very fine beam/cone. This is a lite version of industrial water pressure cutters, and if you're careless, you can give yourself really nasty cuts. At high pressures, it can strip off skin in an instant.

Yeh but that hose can cut through fruit and bread not skin, otherwise we would have seen the child ripped up. The girl would have been battered around a bit so bruises is what you may look. A good spank on the bottom would have been better.

True, it depends on the pressure really. I have a home use high pressure spray and that produces a fine enough high pressure jet that at close ranges, you WILL lose skin if you're not paying attention.


Where I used to work a group of contractors would come to clean the inside of storage bins and use high pressure to do the job, one day a workmate of mine accidently got his toes underneath the spray it was a good thing he was wearing steel capped boots becuase the water cut right through the thick leather opening up a thin line where you could see the steel, had it had hit him further up the boot it would have cut his foot off.

Sounds like a lot higher pressure than what you'd find on standard home use units. The one I have can strip skin off if you put a finger near the nozzle, but I don't think it can cut that deep.

And the award for 'Most Negligent Mother' goes to...

Silly woman, get a proper hose, even then that kid was a bit young for the pressure hose treatment, you have to be at least 20 before you can take that sort of punishment.
Reminds me of a darwin award, where the guy was using a pressure hose to clean chewing gum off the pavement, he felt thirsty, so he turned the hose around pointed it at his face and activated it. It blew his jaw clean off, i think he died.

well she isnt going to be nominated for mother of the year but arrest and jail is a bit much. she needs to be investigated by child services and given some councilling in how to deal with a 2 year old.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Also, governments are out of control too. In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.

You have GOT to be kidding me.
Before the present time, kids were disciplined by their parents, physically, MUCH more often than today. My parents had the three time rule: first, they tell you if you're doing something unacceptable, second, they warn you a second time of what you're doing that's unacceptable and the consequence for continuing, and the third time, you go the consequence -- whether it was a slap on the bottom, losing a toy, being grounded or whatever.

When my dad was a kid, you got out of line and you got slapped. If you REALLY got out of line, you got hit with the strap. And no one intervened unless you were getting regularly whaled on.

People tend to get involved a lot now. And that's good mixed with bad. The good thing is it may prevent abusive parents getting away with it as often, which is why the community is so outraged when there is a case of abuse. The bad thing is that under the guise of "kids being kids" the vast majority of them run wild without fear of consequences in school, in restaurants, in the mall, in the supermarket -- because parents are afraid or unable or unwilling to discipline them and are bombarded with the message that rudeness, disobedience, destructiveness and obnoxious behavior is "kids being kids."

NOW GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!!!

That said: I've used those high power car washes. It hurts like hell if you accidentally get your foot, in a shoe. Those pressure washers CAN take the skin right off if they're set too high. There is no way in hell that parent should have hosed a kid that small with a pressure washer.

Also, governments are out of control too.

Yeah, let's go back to the times that clan feuds could be fought out without intervention of those nasty government officials.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Also, governments are out of control too. In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.

Amen to that.

I've been sprayed by a pressure washer messing around with my friends, and it hurts like hell. This is abuse, even if it wasn't, that's irrelevant to the greater problem. This child was too young to understand a punishment, especially a punishment of such a physically harmful nature. There's an epidemic of stupid people thinking they have the right to breed.

lol hoses.

Oh also, if put on a low setting, the whole event might well have ACTUALLY just been extremely funny and not particularly damaging, come on, guys.

"The girl was examined Thursday and a nurse found no bumps or bruises."

So there we go. It was probably a slightly comic way of resolving the situation, and it's much better than smacking a child, no?

It basically comes down to the fact that modern people are just frigging lazy and cant move their asses for more than 10 seconds to arrange a sensible punishment

modern life is all about convenience - theability to fulfil every whim as fast as possible - and that is what this lady has done, she grabbed the most available object for use as a punishment tool regardless of any and all repurcussions.

Back in the day, when most of US were bad, all we got was a ruler over the palms of the hands or daddy's belt across our butt, and we turned out fine


grabbing the nearest object if fine in a fight with a grown up fight where you need a defensive weapon, but nearest objects becoming disciplinary tools is a hell no

The pressure hose is adjustable. Unless you can determine that she was using the pressure hose at a dangerous level she was just doing what me and my friends do just about any time we use a car wash. Getting soaked doesn't really seem like child abuse.

I never found the line between discipline and abuse to be particularly fuzzy.

One of the easiest ways to tell is shame. If you can't tell anybody the truth and have to make up stories like: He fell down the steps... had a bike accident...touched a hot stove... etc. It's abuse.

I'm not saying I agree with strapping, but there's a vast difference between that and punching your kid around the house. I'm also not saying I agree with this pressure washer treatment. But I am suggesting that people seem to be a little fast to judge it as abuse simply because they don't agree with it.

And the award for 'Most Negligent Mother' goes to...

Really? Most Negligent Mother? This chick? Are you kidding me?


Im not sure I like the idea of sparying a kid with a hose capable of flaying skin off, but come on. It was turned down, so whether its abuse or not is open to debate, but calling her Most Negligent Mother is foolish.

Back in the day, when most of US were bad, all we got was a ruler over the palms of the hands or daddy's belt across our butt, and we turned out fine



Not in my experiance, and I turned out fine.

http://www.wesh.com/news/15528862/detail.html

Is every form of child discipline we disagree with automatically child abuse?

The girl was examined Thursday and a nurse found no bumps or bruises.

This, to me, is the important bit. Yes, a pressure washer could be used to hit a child with enough force that it would constitute felony child abuse. If you use it full blast to cause pain equivalent to a punch or a kick (or peeling the bark from a tree) then it's child abuse. If you just use it to give the child a quick blast of cold water, in an area with sultry weather, then it's well within a parents prerogative.

The video looks damning, but I'd say one would have to feel how hard the blast was to have an informed opinion on the fairness of this as a disciplinary measure. Frankly, in Orlando weather, I think a nice hosing would make a lot of people behave better.

Really? Most Negligent Mother? This chick? Are you kidding me?


Im not sure I like the idea of sparying a kid with a hose capable of flaying skin off, but come on. It was turned down, so whether its abuse or not is open to debate, but calling her Most Negligent Mother is foolish.

Yes. Negligent doesn't mean you do bad things to the kid. It means you do nothing for the kid.

Spraying a kid with a pressure washer is potentially abuse (depending on how high up it's turned), standing by while kids turn a pressure washer on each other is negligent.

Maybe the father is negligent for letting the mother be alone with the kid while pregnancy hormones are surging.

The pressure hose is adjustable. Unless you can determine that she was using the pressure hose at a dangerous level she was just doing what me and my friends do just about any time we use a car wash. Getting soaked doesn't really seem like child abuse.

Certainly not in Florida. In Minnesota this time of year...

Was watching the raw footage and it does not appear that the water pressure was on full pressure. If you go to a good self clean car wash there are different settings for different things you want to do. It appears that it was on a low setting(pre-soak) and it doesn't look as if she was spraying the kid in the face. I wouldn't agree with the mother however I am not sure this warrants an arrest. Would have to know more about the case to make a judgement.

Certainly not in Florida. In Minnesota this time of year...

Most car washes are off when it is to cold anyway.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm

* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

The investigation is to decide if it comes to either standard, I would guess.

This seems to have been done in anger - I don't think it qualifies as discipline or punishment.

In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.

*ahem*

"Removing a child is an extremely tragic experience for the child. We do that only when there's no other option. We do all we can to help the child, and not all cases require removal," Hoeppner said.

Being sprayed with a hose is not the worse type of punishment I can think of...

Pressure-Washer =/= hose. Well it is, but not nearly on the same level as your garden hose. Probably like comparing an airsoft gun to a semi-automatic rifle.

Silly woman, get a proper hose, even then that kid was a bit young for the pressure hose treatment, you have to be at least 20 before you can take that sort of punishment.
Reminds me of a darwin award, where the guy was using a pressure hose to clean chewing gum off the pavement, he felt thirsty, so he turned the hose around pointed it at his face and activated it. It blew his jaw clean off, i think he died.

Who, this guy?

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/7/77/Malak_Jawless.jpg

she didn't even bother taking the kid's clothes off first, this is obviously a form a punishment.

http://www.wesh.com/news/15528862/detail.html

Is every form of child discipline we disagree with automatically child abuse?

Yes this is child abuse. So is spanking and other types of violence, IMO.

Yes this is child abuse. So is spanking and other types of violence, IMO.

Oh get over yourself, spanking isn't child abuse. It's a legitimate form of discipline.

Oh get over yourself, spanking isn't child abuse. It's a legitimate form of discipline.

Spanking is punishment, not discipline.

Oh get over yourself, spanking isn't child abuse. It's a legitimate form of discipline.

LOL.

The pressure hose is adjustable. Unless you can determine that she was using the pressure hose at a dangerous level she was just doing what me and my friends do just about any time we use a car wash. Getting soaked doesn't really seem like child abuse.

Okay, let's change gears a bit: suppose you watched a video of a woman get pinned up against a wall by a man with her arms behind her back in a painful position and saw him yank her pants off. Would the fact that he didn't actually penetrate or leave any bruises make this any less a felony offense? If your answer is no, then you'd be goddamned right: the very act of domination for the sake of domination degrades her as a person. But of course, the same thing applies to a child.

The standard for what constitutes a felony in this case isn't whether or not it was just water or whether there were actually lacerations, but whether or not she damaged the child, and just as you can damage a woman by dominating her physically even without leaving marks, you can damage a child by dominating him or her physically even without leaving marks. I don't think you can listen to a girl screaming in terror and pain and legitemately say that no damage is going on.

You have GOT to be kidding me.
Before the present time, kids were disciplined by their parents, physically, MUCH more often than today. My parents had the three time rule: first, they tell you if you're doing something unacceptable, second, they warn you a second time of what you're doing that's unacceptable and the consequence for continuing, and the third time, you go the consequence -- whether it was a slap on the bottom, losing a toy, being grounded or whatever.

When my dad was a kid, you got out of line and you got slapped. If you REALLY got out of line, you got hit with the strap. And no one intervened unless you were getting regularly whaled on.

People tend to get involved a lot now. And that's good mixed with bad. The good thing is it may prevent abusive parents getting away with it as often, which is why the community is so outraged when there is a case of abuse. The bad thing is that under the guise of "kids being kids" the vast majority of them run wild without fear of consequences in school, in restaurants, in the mall, in the supermarket -- because parents are afraid or unable or unwilling to discipline them and are bombarded with the message that rudeness, disobedience, destructiveness and obnoxious behavior is "kids being kids."

NOW GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!!!

That said: I've used those high power car washes. It hurts like hell if you accidentally get your foot, in a shoe. Those pressure washers CAN take the skin right off if they're set too high. There is no way in hell that parent should have hosed a kid that small with a pressure washer.

The above generally sums up my opinion on the matter.

Back in the day, I used to be beat with switches, hands, and belts.. These kids today, have it easy.

Yes, well back in the day blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Things change.

Back in the day, I used to be beat with switches, hands, and belts.. These kids today, have it easy.

And what is so bad about the back of the bus? In grade school, kids would fight to get a back seat. It was thought that all the cool kids sat in the back.

My point is that just because it was different in the past doesn't mean it should be that way now.

I was a kid growing up in the nineties. I am sure if it was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

Your certainty changes nothing. I was a kid growing up in the 90s and wasn't beaten, with anything, ever.

Yes, well back in the day blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Things change.

And what is so bad about the back of the bus? In grade school, kids would fight to get a back seat. It was thought that all the cool kids sat in the back.

Explains so much ;)

I concur.

My point is that just because it was different in the past doesn't mean it should be that way now.

I was a kid growing up in the nineties. I am sure if it was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

Your certainty changes nothing. I was a kid growing up in the 90s and wasn't beaten, with anything, ever.

Explains so much ;)

Okay, let's change gears a bit: suppose you watched a video of a woman get pinned up against a wall by a man with her arms behind her back in a painful position and saw him yank her pants off. Would the fact that he didn't actually penetrate or leave any bruises make this any less a felony offense? If your answer is no, then you'd be goddamned right: the very act of domination for the sake of domination degrades her as a person. But of course, the same thing applies to a child.

The standard for what constitutes a felony in this case isn't whether or not it was just water or whether there were actually lacerations, but whether or not she damaged the child, and just as you can damage a woman by dominating her physically even without leaving marks, you can damage a child by dominating him or her physically even without leaving marks. I don't think you can listen to a girl screaming in terror and pain and legitemately say that no damage is going on.

You have to cross a great distance between pinning and disrobing a woman (in a shockingly specific and detailed scenario, just saying) and being hit with a spray of water. A kid will wail because they aren't being bought a Nintendo game or a Barbie, you can't argue that just because the kid is wailing it's abuse. And I'm not even arguing the 'if it doesn't leave a mark' thing. But I'm not going to call getting soaked abuse. Especially if you're taking into account apparently (and I could be wrong about this since I just read it in the thread) the kid peed in her seat. Is it the best solution? No. Parent of the year? Far from it. Child abuse and a federal charge? Seems like a stretch. Comparing it to pinning and stripping a woman? A big stretch.

You have GOT to be kidding me.
Before the present time, kids were disciplined by their parents, physically, MUCH more often than today. My parents had the three time rule: first, they tell you if you're doing something unacceptable, second, they warn you a second time of what you're doing that's unacceptable and the consequence for continuing, and the third time, you go the consequence -- whether it was a slap on the bottom, losing a toy, being grounded or whatever.

When my dad was a kid, you got out of line and you got slapped. If you REALLY got out of line, you got hit with the strap. And no one intervened unless you were getting regularly whaled on.Firstly, I'm not so much interested in a comparison of a few decades then I would be a comparison of a few centuries or millennia. Also, I would be interested in a comparison between cultures. Like how are/were children in Latin America raised? Africa? China? etc.

Secondly, when you or your Dad got disciplined, what was the emotional content communicated? Today's parent often often communicates to their kid that they are a bad person, and does so with spite. From the stories I'm told by people older than me, discipline used to be doled out with less emotional vitriol, which IMO is what's creating many of the problems with kids these days.

Yeah, let's go back to the times that clan feuds could be fought out without intervention of those nasty government officials.Troll presents a straw man.

You have to cross a great distance between pinning and disrobing a woman (in a shockingly specific and detailed scenario, just saying) and being hit with a spray of water. A kid will wail because they aren't being bought a Nintendo game or a Barbie, you can't argue that just because the kid is wailing it's abuse. And I'm not even arguing the 'if it doesn't leave a mark' thing. But I'm not going to call getting soaked abuse. Especially if you're taking into account apparently (and I could be wrong about this since I just read it in the thread) the kid peed in her seat. Is it the best solution? No. Parent of the year? Far from it. Child abuse and a federal charge? Seems like a stretch. Comparing it to pinning and stripping a woman? A big stretch.

What you miss in that example is what makes abuse abuse, and what makes abuse and assault so similar: the will to dominate another. If a parent decides to hose down their child (why I'm not sure, as the damage has pretty much already been done at that point, and it's not like a sopping wet child in the backseat improves your car any more) as a means of removing urine, they might do so, and if they did they would be careful to pick the right tools and show concern for the child. That isn't what happened here. Here we see a woman putting a child up against the wall and blasting her with water even after she's clearly gone from having-a-tantrum stage to omigod-I'm-in-a-lot-of-pain-and-fear stage. A mother, even a mother who is torqued off at her child, doesn't lose sight of the basic compassion that stops us when we cross that threshold.

My thoughts are a bit scattered, so I will clarify. A parent is defined by his or her compassion for his or her child, even when that child is seriously honking them off. What seperates punishment from assault is quite simply the retention of this basic sense of compassion. There are some things a parent simply will not do to his or her child no matter what, and there are points at which a parent will always stop because the intended effect of punishment, namely correction, has been switched out for the actual effect of terror. An assault might use the same techniques as punishment, but it's purpose is always, always the assertion of brute power over another through the application of force and intimidation. Now, in the case of the sexual assault I mentioned, we can very clearly see that is the case. We should equally be able to see, however, that it was also at work in this case: a woman who is attempting to help her child simply does not keep power-blasting her child after she's gone from a state of tantrum to a state of abject terror. Whether there was actual permanent or serious physical trauma is beside the point.

What you miss in that example is what makes abuse abuse, and what makes abuse and assault so similar: the will to dominate another. If a parent decides to hose down their child (why I'm not sure, as the damage has pretty much already been done at that point, and it's not like a sopping wet child in the backseat improves your car any more) as a means of removing urine, they might do so, and if they did they would be careful to pick the right tools and show concern for the child. That isn't what happened here. Here we see a woman putting a child up against the wall and blasting her with water even after she's clearly gone from having-a-tantrum stage to omigod-I'm-in-a-lot-of-pain-and-fear stage. A mother, even a mother who is torqued off at her child, doesn't lose sight of the basic compassion that stops us when we cross that threshold.

My thoughts are a bit scattered, so I will clarify. A parent is defined by his or her compassion for his or her child, even when that child is seriously honking them off. What seperates punishment from assault is quite simply the retention of this basic sense of compassion. There are some things a parent simply will not do to his or her child no matter what, and there are points at which a parent will always stop because the intended effect of punishment, namely correction, has been switched out for the actual effect of terror. An assault might use the same techniques as punishment, but it's purpose is always, always the assertion of brute power over another through the application of force and intimidation. Now, in the case of the sexual assault I mentioned, we can very clearly see that is the case. We should equally be able to see, however, that it was also at work in this case: a woman who is attempting to help her child simply does not keep power-blasting her child after she's gone from a state of tantrum to a state of abject terror. Whether there was actual permanent or serious physical trauma is beside the point.
In order to make this work you still have to lean on 'power blasting' and the threshold of permanent of serious physical trauma. If she was being hit with a super-soaker would it be different? The hose is adjustable. The only thing we know is that she got soaked. While not the best decision, it is not a federal case. The damage done to the child getting wet are far far far less damaging than the effects of her parent being jailed, of her home being forced asunder. To take something where the proportional response is perhaps not in balance the answer is not to have an increasingly disproportionate response. I'm not applying a rubber-hose standard. I'm saying that getting soaked, while might be humiliating if done while your parent is yelling at you hardly compares with being denuded forcibly nor with a federal case of child abuse. Just because it's not the best response doesn't mean it's a federal case.

This child was too young to understand a punishment, especially a punishment of such a physically harmful nature

You have got to be kidding me. Every living thing capable of learning understands punishment; its a basic tenant of conditioning in psychology.

I find nothing whatsoever wrong with this case. The child was examined and no injuries were found, so it was clear that that mother was being responsible about the intensity if the punishment. Just because a high-pressue hose CAN be deadly if used on full blast doesn't mean you should hold people accountable if it was a low pressure. A time out is deadly if the child is forced to stand in a corner for 3 weeks, yet should we arrest parents who put their kids in time out for an hour as a punishment? No.

Parents have a right to discipline their kids as they see fit, so long as lasting harm is not inflicted. None was here, the parent is scot-free.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Also, governments are out of control too. In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.
But nowadays, you get yelled at for trying to help. Someone could offer to intervene, but they'll be told to butt the fuck out. Also, a nearby person does not have the right to use force. I mean all they can do is say "You shouldn't do that..." It's not like they can grab the baby and take it as an adoption.

I use those hoses all the time - they're harmless. I use them on my arms and legs when I've been vacuuming the car out (before I wash it). Again, harmless.

Lesson here is: don't discipline your kid in public, especially if yuppies are around. :p

Secondly, when you or your Dad got disciplined, what was the emotional content communicated?
Pretty much "what the hell were you thinking?"

Today's parent often often communicates to their kid that they are a bad person, and does so with spite.
Source, please.

But nowadays, you get yelled at for trying to help. Someone could offer to intervene, but they'll be told to butt the fuck out. Also, a nearby person does not have the right to use force. I mean all they can do is say "You shouldn't do that..." It's not like they can grab the baby and take it as an adoption.

You have a legal right to use force to defend a third party.

Not that it would've been appropriate here, from the looks of it...

Source, please.My eyes and ears.

I use those hoses all the time - they're harmless. I use them on my arms and legs when I've been vacuuming the car out (before I wash it). Again, harmless.


On a low pressure setting, yes. At a high pressure setting, well, I'll let your flayed skin do the talking.

On a low pressure setting, yes. At a high pressure setting, well, I'll let your flayed skin do the talking.

That's silly. It was a car wash. There's only one setting when the knob is turned to 'pressure wash,' which is high pressure (when you squeeze the trigger all the way down). Unless that car wash is significantly different from any I've ever been to, there was no danger to the child. The fact that there was no bruising probably confirms it.

lol hoses.

Oh also, if put on a low setting, the whole event might well have ACTUALLY just been extremely funny and not particularly damaging, come on, guys.

"The girl was examined Thursday and a nurse found no bumps or bruises."

So there we go. It was probably a slightly comic way of resolving the situation, and it's much better than smacking a child, no?

Yes, humiliation is a far better alternative.

This, to me, is the important bit. Yes, a pressure washer could be used to hit a child with enough force that it would constitute felony child abuse. If you use it full blast to cause pain equivalent to a punch or a kick (or peeling the bark from a tree) then it's child abuse. If you just use it to give the child a quick blast of cold water, in an area with sultry weather, then it's well within a parents prerogative.

The law does state that abuse cannot leave marks. However, a great deal of creative abuse goes on that leaves very few indicators. I had a student whose father made him run up and down stairs until he collapsed as punishment, made him take icy showers, withheld meals. None of those are easily visible. I know people whose parents made them kneel in trays of rice as punishment (and if it doesn't sound so bad, you've never done it).

You have to cross a great distance between pinning and disrobing a woman (in a shockingly specific and detailed scenario, just saying) and being hit with a spray of water. A kid will wail because they aren't being bought a Nintendo game or a Barbie, you can't argue that just because the kid is wailing it's abuse. And I'm not even arguing the 'if it doesn't leave a mark' thing. But I'm not going to call getting soaked abuse. Especially if you're taking into account apparently (and I could be wrong about this since I just read it in the thread) the kid peed in her seat. Is it the best solution? No. Parent of the year? Far from it. Child abuse and a federal charge? Seems like a stretch. Comparing it to pinning and stripping a woman? A big stretch.

Humiliation is definitely the best way to deal with children who have accidents. Because it's not like they always have control over their bodies, or they aren't already embarrassed.

A kid "wailing" because they aren't bought a toy is certainly not abuse. Spraying said child with a pressure hose to make them stop IS abuse. The crime here is laziness. My mother never, ever hit me, rarely even yelled at me--I'm trying to think of a time she did--but I knew from early on to mind my ps and qs. I would never think to behave the way some children I see do, screaming and hitting at their parents. I was raised with non-painful consequences, respect, explanations, and patience. You can't fast-forward your way to a well-behaved child by beating them.

You have got to be kidding me. Every living thing capable of learning understands punishment; its a basic tenant of conditioning in psychology.

I find nothing whatsoever wrong with this case. The child was examined and no injuries were found, so it was clear that that mother was being responsible about the intensity if the punishment. Just because a high-pressue hose CAN be deadly if used on full blast doesn't mean you should hold people accountable if it was a low pressure. A time out is deadly if the child is forced to stand in a corner for 3 weeks, yet should we arrest parents who put their kids in time out for an hour as a punishment? No.

Parents have a right to discipline their kids as they see fit, so long as lasting harm is not inflicted. None was here, the parent is scot-free.

The child was 2 and 1/2 and had a toilet training accident. All the punishment in the world is not going to induce the muscle control necessary to prevent a repeat; it's an issue of physiological, not psychological, development. This child was needlessly humiliated and physically endangered (if you don't accept that hose trigger could have been unintentionally squeezed too hard you're nuts) because of an incident she likely had little control over to begin with. As far as I'm concerned it's abuse.

You have got to be kidding me. Every living thing capable of learning understands punishment; its a basic tenant of conditioning in psychology.

Yes, you can make a lot of animals feel pain and associate it with something. That doesn't mean they understand why the thing causing pain was the wrong choice, it just means they're too afraid to do it again.

Parents have a right to discipline their kids as they see fit, so long as lasting harm is not inflicted. None was here, the parent is scot-free.

Is this your personal opinion? Because it's certainly not the law. The law does not say the harm has to be "lasting" it just has to be visible. And if you think hurting and shaming a child in public in this way leaves no lasting harm, you don't understand as much about psychology as you claim, unless you're a soulless behaviorist.

The law does state that abuse cannot leave marks. However, a great deal of creative abuse goes on that leaves very few indicators. I had a student whose father made him run up and down stairs until he collapsed as punishment, made him take icy showers, withheld meals. None of those are easily visible. I know people whose parents made them kneel in trays of rice as punishment (and if it doesn't sound so bad, you've never done it).

Eh. None of those are abuse per se, except possibly the rice if it's as bad as you say - it depends how far they're taken and under what circumstances.

Is this your personal opinion? Because it's certainly not the law. The law does not say the harm has to be "lasting" it just has to be visible. And if you think hurting and shaming a child in public in this way leaves no lasting harm, you don't understand as much about psychology as you claim, unless you're a soulless behaviorist.

Well la-di-dah, if it isn't Carl Rogers back from the dead. :p Behaviorism as a philosophy may not work in every circumstance, but no respectable psychological theory counts it out categorically - we owe a lot to the behaviorist tradition even if it doesn't explain absolutely everything.

Humiliation is definitely the best way to deal with children who have accidents. Because it's not like they always have control over their bodies, or they aren't already embarrassed.

A kid "wailing" because they aren't bought a toy is certainly not abuse. Spraying said child with a pressure hose to make them stop IS abuse. The crime here is laziness. My mother never, ever hit me, rarely even yelled at me--I'm trying to think of a time she did--but I knew from early on to mind my ps and qs. I would never think to behave the way some children I see do, screaming and hitting at their parents. I was raised with non-painful consequences, respect, explanations, and patience. You can't fast-forward your way to a well-behaved child by beating them.
There are a few things-we have to be careful where we draw the line as to whether 'bad parenting' is a federal case. You'll not find me agreeing that this was the best or even a good way to deal with the child. But simply because I feel it was a stupid and unnecessary thing to do I don't think it merits the more damaging in my opinion act of arresting her mother and tearing the home apart. At best it might merit an examination of the conditions the child is raised under to ensure it's not a glut of bad decisions, but thats it.

The second is to not to make too much of the humiliation factor. When I was 3 it still wasn't uncommon for me to run outside without pants and I was at least two years away from understanding the sentence, "You're making a scene." I'm not diminishing the mental state of the kid, again-not the best reaction, but I don't think we do much by overstating it either.

You have got to be kidding me. Every living thing capable of learning understands punishment; its a basic tenant of conditioning in psychology.

I find nothing whatsoever wrong with this case. The child was examined and no injuries were found, so it was clear that that mother was being responsible about the intensity if the punishment. Just because a high-pressue hose CAN be deadly if used on full blast doesn't mean you should hold people accountable if it was a low pressure. A time out is deadly if the child is forced to stand in a corner for 3 weeks, yet should we arrest parents who put their kids in time out for an hour as a punishment? No.

Parents have a right to discipline their kids as they see fit, so long as lasting harm is not inflicted. None was here, the parent is scot-free.

Weird, I was actually going to make the opposite argument:
The kid (and pretty much all humans capable of talking) would not have learned "Don't piss in the car" from this, she would have learned "Don't get caught if you piss in the car".
See, humans are intelligent enough to try and think ways around conditioning.
For example:
There is a room with an electrified strip of floor and food on the other side.
Put a rat in the room, it will go for the food, get shocked, go back and think "Gee, I'd better not do that again" and stay on its side of the room till you take it back out.
Now put a human in the room. She will go for the food, get shocked, go back, and think "I wonder if I can jump over that?". So she tries. Whether or not she succeeds, she will go back and think of something else, because humans cannot be conditioned the way animals can. Yes, eventually the human will give up, but she will try for it a few times before she realizes she can't win.

(Incidentally, mental harm lasts FAR longer then physical harm. Even if no bruises were found, the kid was still hurt and humiliated for something she has no control over at her age. And she WILL remember it.)

Eh. None of those are abuse per se, except possibly the rice if it's as bad as you say - it depends how far they're taken and under what circumstances.

So you think not feeding a 10-year-old child is an acceptable punishment? I just want to be very clear.

Well la-di-dah, if it isn't Carl Rogers back from the dead. :p Behaviorism as a philosophy may not work in every circumstance, but no respectable psychological theory counts it out categorically - we owe a lot to the behaviorist tradition even if it doesn't explain absolutely everything.

No, behaviorism has taught us a lot. It's also, unfortunately, taught a lot of people to treat others like lab rats.

I will not deny that it works. Of course it works. The question you have to ask is whether you want fast results (I hit child whenever he throws a tantrum, child is afraid and stops throwing tantrums after three hits) or real character-building lessons.

So you think not feeding a 10-year-old child is an acceptable punishment? I just want to be very clear.

As in, being sent to bed without dinner? Standard practice. No harm is done. Give the kid an extra piece of toast at breakfast if you're concerned.

No, behaviorism has taught us a lot. It's also, unfortunately, taught a lot of people to treat others like lab rats.

I will not deny that it works. Of course it works. The question you have to ask is whether you want fast results (I hit child whenever he throws a tantrum, child is afraid and stops throwing tantrums after three hits) or real character-building lessons.

That question is a far cry from the legal one - whether a certain behavior should be *legal* or not is still at the core of this thread, I think. Patience and innovative methods will always be more effective than something as crude as physical violence, at least in children whose temporal lobes are developed to the point that they're capable of forming useful learning memory. It's up to the parent to know whether to use a light touch or a more heavy-handed one.

Car pressure hoses like that operate under high pressures, and from personal experience, can flay skin off your flesh at close range. Whether it's abuse or not depends on the pressure settings.

Yeah car washes electric pressure washers usually 900 PSI ... not cutting skin but damn it would hurt the eyes and ears and be rather painful

The gas fired ones get up to 2500+ PSI and can cut 2x4 (we have at least one of each)

Either way the likely pressure they are using would hurt and could cause damage and NOT a good idea I would qualify it as abuse at any likely pressure.

Anyone who thinks this is acceptable really needs to reconsider their perspective. The poor child was 2 years old. Her mother soaked her with water using a hose that would have caused a 2 year old pain in a public place. It's not discipline: it's idiocy, poor parenting and abuse. If the toddler was merely throwing a tantrum, there are many alternatives. Seriously, is this bitch on crack?

However, I don't think this is the only thing that should be taken into consideration if the child is being removed from her home. This incident could have been a once off, and unless there is any other evidence to suggest the child is being neglected or abused, or anything else to prove the mother is unable to treat the child well, she shouldn't be removed from her home. Afterall, foster homes aren't necessarily safer.

This is from the article:
Many people said this form of punishment was abusive, but some people said it was tough discipline -- a parent's prerogative.

It's no one's perogative to hurt another human being. A child is not a parent's property.

Not to sound assy (well, that's already blown), but parents would do better to learn something about raising kids from raising pets. As a kindergarten teacher who also has a just-turned-one-year puppy, I can attest to the striking similarities in raising and training a puppy and raising/teaching a kid.

Of course, a lot of people are awful to their pets, too. Really they should just be kinder, more patient and less emotional overall with both. Parents need to realize that children are neither mindless dolls nor miniature adults.

Look, I'm sure you have a point in their somewhere, but I would prefer it if my child's kinergarten teacher didn't think it was the same as training a puppy.

You have GOT to be kidding me.
Before the present time, kids were disciplined by their parents, physically, MUCH more often than today. My parents had the three time rule: first, they tell you if you're doing something unacceptable, second, they warn you a second time of what you're doing that's unacceptable and the consequence for continuing, and the third time, you go the consequence -- whether it was a slap on the bottom, losing a toy, being grounded or whatever.

A slap on the bottom is different to being grounded. You realise that, right?

When my dad was a kid, you got out of line and you got slapped. If you REALLY got out of line, you got hit with the strap. And no one intervened unless you were getting regularly whaled on.

I don't know what I disagree with more: your father's bad parenting, or the fact that you think his actions were acceptable.

The bad thing is that under the guise of "kids being kids" the vast majority of them run wild without fear of consequences in school, in restaurants, in the mall, in the supermarket -- because parents are afraid or unable or unwilling to discipline them and are bombarded with the message that rudeness, disobedience, destructiveness and obnoxious behavior is "kids being kids."

No. Good parents are able to control their kids, and prevent them from running rampant in shopping centres. They achieve this by teaching their children how to behave in public, not by resorting physical voilence.

That said: I've used those high power car washes. It hurts like hell if you accidentally get your foot, in a shoe. Those pressure washers CAN take the skin right off if they're set too high. There is no way in hell that parent should have hosed a kid that small with a pressure washer.

I agree, but I don't think children should be hurt, ever.

I've been sprayed by a pressure washer messing around with my friends, and it hurts like hell. This is abuse, even if it wasn't, that's irrelevant to the greater problem. This child was too young to understand a punishment, especially a punishment of such a physically harmful nature. There's an epidemic of stupid people thinking they have the right to breed.

Well, I don't think the greatest problem was that she's too young to understand a punishment. I think the greatest problem is that this mother intentionally hurt her child in the form of physical punishment. The child will probably understand that if she throws a tantrum her mum is going to hurt her, especially if this vicious pattern continues, but it's simply not the right way to go about it.

The pressure hose is adjustable. Unless you can determine that she was using the pressure hose at a dangerous level she was just doing what me and my friends do just about any time we use a car wash. Getting soaked doesn't really seem like child abuse.

Oh please, it doesn't matter if it was turned down. She just soaked her 2-year-old child as a punishment.

I never found the line between discipline and abuse to be particularly fuzzy.

One of the easiest ways to tell is shame. If you can't tell anybody the truth and have to make up stories like: He fell down the steps... had a bike accident...touched a hot stove... etc. It's abuse.

I'm not saying I agree with strapping, but there's a vast difference between that and punching your kid around the house. I'm also not saying I agree with this pressure washer treatment. But I am suggesting that people seem to be a little fast to judge it as abuse simply because they don't agree with it.

Well, the thing is that it simply isn't easy to tell. Abuse doesn't have to leave marks.

Well, no there really isn't a difference. Resorting to violence as a means of punishing a child is wrong, full stop.

But the reason why people don't agree with it is because it's abuse.

Yes. Negligent doesn't mean you do bad things to the kid. It means you do nothing for the kid.
Spraying a kid with a pressure washer is potentially abuse (depending on how high up it's turned), standing by while kids turn a pressure washer on each other is negligent.

Maybe the father is negligent for letting the mother be alone with the kid while pregnancy hormones are surging.

What's hilarious is that you're attacking someone's understanding of the word "negligent", but you're clearly an ignorant fool!

Oh get over yourself, spanking isn't child abuse. It's a legitimate form of discipline.

Uh, no. It's not. Good parents don't need to resort to violence.

Spanking is punishment, not discipline.

*nods*

Okay, let's change gears a bit: suppose you watched a video of a woman get pinned up against a wall by a man with her arms behind her back in a painful position and saw him yank her pants off. Would the fact that he didn't actually penetrate or leave any bruises make this any less a felony offense? If your answer is no, then you'd be goddamned right: the very act of domination for the sake of domination degrades her as a person. But of course, the same thing applies to a child.

The standard for what constitutes a felony in this case isn't whether or not it was just water or whether there were actually lacerations, but whether or not she damaged the child, and just as you can damage a woman by dominating her physically even without leaving marks, you can damage a child by dominating him or her physically even without leaving marks. I don't think you can listen to a girl screaming in terror and pain and legitemately say that no damage is going on.

While that's not the example I would have personally used, I agree with you.

Back in the day, I used to be beat with switches, hands, and belts.. These kids today, have it easy.

What's sad is that people who have been beaten as children DEFEND the behaviour. Do you really think that being beaten made you a better person? Do you really think it was your parents' right to hurt you? And do you really think that society should continue such inhumane practices?

Kids don't have it easy: it's hard enough growing up as it is; children don't need extra bullshit like abusive parents.

And what is so bad about the back of the bus? In grade school, kids would fight to get a back seat. It was thought that all the cool kids sat in the back.

:rolleyes:

In order to make this work you still have to lean on 'power blasting' and the threshold of permanent of serious physical trauma. If she was being hit with a super-soaker would it be different? The hose is adjustable. The only thing we know is that she got soaked. While not the best decision, it is not a federal case. The damage done to the child getting wet are far far far less damaging than the effects of her parent being jailed, of her home being forced asunder. To take something where the proportional response is perhaps not in balance the answer is not to have an increasingly disproportionate response. I'm not applying a rubber-hose standard. I'm saying that getting soaked, while might be humiliating if done while your parent is yelling at you hardly compares with being denuded forcibly nor with a federal case of child abuse. Just because it's not the best response doesn't mean it's a federal case.

It might not be a "federal case of child abuse" but it's still abusive.

You have got to be kidding me. Every living thing capable of learning understands punishment; its a basic tenant of conditioning in psychology.

I find nothing whatsoever wrong with this case. The child was examined and no injuries were found, so it was clear that that mother was being responsible about the intensity if the punishment. Just because a high-pressue hose CAN be deadly if used on full blast doesn't mean you should hold people accountable if it was a low pressure. A time out is deadly if the child is forced to stand in a corner for 3 weeks, yet should we arrest parents who put their kids in time out for an hour as a punishment? No.

Parents have a right to discipline their kids as they see fit, so long as lasting harm is not inflicted. None was here, the parent is scot-free.

The child was still harmed, even if there's no physical evidence. Plus, using your logic, people shouldn't be punished for "attempted murder".

I use those hoses all the time - they're harmless. I use them on my arms and legs when I've been vacuuming the car out (before I wash it). Again, harmless.

Lesson here is: don't discipline your kid in public, especially if yuppies are around. :p

:rolleyes:


Eh. None of those are abuse per se, except possibly the rice if it's as bad as you say - it depends how far they're taken and under what circumstances.

If someone causes harm to a child (whether it be physical or mental) it's abusive.

If something causes harm to a child (whether it be physical or mental) it's abusive.

I'd say that whoever taught you to believe this so absolutely, in effect, abused you. Honestly. The fact that you're quoting and disagreeing with basically everyone who's posted in this thread so far might be a tip-off that you're in the minority on this. ;)

I'll make three quick propositions, just to keep this thing on the tracks:

1. Pain in itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing - it's not normally necessary to cause pain to teach a child, but the presence of pain (psychic or physical) is not a de facto indicator of abuse.

2. Our subjective experience of pain is directly inherited from our parents via conditioning. The way our parents deal with pain is the way we learn to deal with pain. If, in your family, a tug on the ear is unheard of, and you're used to seeing your mother or father become hysterical over any bump or scrape, then the idea will terrify you - it may even amount to abuse, in that case. If you have been socialized to see pain as a part of life and the learning process, then a spanking or some other mild application of pain will not cause undue anxiety to your mind, and should not be considered abuse.

3. For practical reasons, social workers will not have the time or resources to determine how point 2 applies to each individual family. This means individuals will apply simple heuristics to each case which may be flawed, but most probably effective in solving the most blatant cases of abuse. We can speculate about the mother's intent here, but we don't have the whole picture.

2. Our subjective experience of pain is directly inherited from our parents via conditioning. The way our parents deal with pain is the way we learn to deal with pain. If, in your family, a tug on the ear is unheard of, and you're used to seeing your mother or father become hysterical over any bump or scrape, then the idea will terrify you - it may even amount to abuse, in that case. If you have been socialized to see pain as a part of life and the learning process, then a spanking or some other mild application of pain will not cause undue anxiety to your mind, and should not be considered abuse.

What if the parent socialises the child to believe that, say, sexual molestation is 'part of life and the learning process'?

2. Our subjective experience of pain is directly inherited from our parents via conditioning. The way our parents deal with pain is the way we learn to deal with pain. If, in your family, a tug on the ear is unheard of, and you're used to seeing your mother or father become hysterical over any bump or scrape, then the idea will terrify you - it may even amount to abuse, in that case. If you have been socialized to see pain as a part of life and the learning process, then a spanking or some other mild application of pain will not cause undue anxiety to your mind, and should not be considered abuse.

Don't sound so confident... My dad was (and still is) abusive, and he deals with pain (whether it be incidental or otherwise) by screaming, yelling, and throwing things. From the very first moment I ever witnessed his reactions, I knew something was just plain off about it.

Believe me, I've spent an immeasureable amount of time with my dad, and I don't act anything like the man. Then again, I've always been really independent... For the most part.

If something causes harm to a child (whether it be physical or mental) it's abusive.

I'm in agreement here.

Don't sound so confident... My dad was (and still is) abusive, and he deals with pain (whether it be incidental or otherwise) by screaming, yelling, and throwing things. From the very first moment I ever witnessed his reactions, I knew something was just plain off about it.

Believe me, I've spent an immeasureable amount of time with my dad, and I don't act anything like the man. Then again, I've always been really independent... For the most part.

Right. Like I was saying (or rather 'repeating,' since this is a known medical/psychological fact, and testable), our experience of pain depends on the socialization process; you're talking about an abusive father, whose coping methods regarding pain are extreme rather than reasonable. It's not surprising then, that you would see that as a conflict and a harmful thing fairly quickly.

Right. Like I was saying (or rather 'repeating,' since this is a known medical/psychological fact, and testable), our experience of pain depends on the socialization process; you're talking about an abusive father, whose coping methods regarding pain are extreme rather than reasonable. It's not surprising then, that you would see that as a conflict and a harmful thing fairly quickly.

I pretty much had to raise myself, and I think I've done a pretty good job.

What if the parent socialises the child to believe that, say, sexual molestation is 'part of life and the learning process'?

Without any reinforcement from society (there wouldn't likely be any) that effort would probably fail. Not that it's the same thing - the emotional experience of the abuse can be conditioned, but there's a difference between the degree to which physical pain is psychogenic in origin and the degree to which emotional abuse resonates in a person given their cultural context, etc.

I'd say that whoever taught you to believe this so absolutely, in effect, abused you. Honestly.

1. People don't teach you to believe things. A person chooses to believe.
2. How, exactly, does that mean "the person who taught me that abused me"?

The fact that you're quoting and disagreeing with basically everyone who's posted in this thread so far might be a tip-off that you're in the minority on this. ;)

1. Actually, I haven't disagreed with everyone in this thread. Some people on here have enough sense to believe that physically harming a child is abusive, and that there are other options when it comes to parenting.

2. NSG isn't exactly representitive of a wide-spread opinion on things, so I highly doubt that the fact that less people think hurting a child is abusve on NSG really means that I'm part of a "minority".

I'll make three quick propositions, just to keep this thing on the tracks:

1. Pain in itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing - it's not normally necessary to cause pain to teach a child, but the presence of pain (psychic or physical) is not a de facto indicator of abuse.

Of course pain is a bad thing. Why else would our body have the function of translating sensation to the brain as "pain"? When you put your hand on a hot surface, you think "owch" and you remove your hand, because "owch" is bad.

Its not necessary at all. Causing a child pain doesn't teach a child; it's punishment.

The actual presence of pain doesn't mean a child is being abused, but when a parent has purposely caused a child pain in the form of punishment, it's abusive.

2. Our subjective experience of pain is directly inherited from our parents via conditioning. The way our parents deal with pain is the way we learn to deal with pain. If, in your family, a tug on the ear is unheard of, and you're used to seeing your mother or father become hysterical over any bump or scrape, then the idea will terrify you - it may even amount to abuse, in that case. If you have been socialized to see pain as a part of life and the learning process, then a spanking or some other mild application of pain will not cause undue anxiety to your mind, and should not be considered abuse.

No. While children learn from the responses their parents make to certain things (for example, my mother always smells the milk and immediately throws it out if it smells even slightly off, and after seeing that as a child, I always do the same thing), the response to pain is not simply a "learnt" response. As I said above, pain - as a sensation - has a purpose, and if someone get's smacked it's still going to hurt them, and being hurt HURTS.

Pain is a part of life: We fall down the stairs, we stub our toes, we get stomach aches, but pain intentionally caused by a parent in the form of punishment is not a part of everyday life.

PS: No one is going to fall for your faux-psychology BS.

3. For practical reasons, social workers will not have the time or resources to determine how point 2 applies to each individual family. This means individuals will apply simple heuristics to each case which may be flawed, but most probably effective in solving the most blatant cases of abuse. We can speculate about the mother's intent here, but we don't have the whole picture.

I agree that the whole picture needs to be considered. If you actually read what I've said, you'd see that I think that this incident may not be wholly indicative of the mother's overall behaviour, and the child's home situation must be taken into account before the child is removed from the home.

However, your 2nd point is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge of psychology, because I've you're going to be making statements such as those, you should at least have a little knowledge to back it up.

1. People don't teach you to believe things. A person chooses to believe.

"People don't teach you to believe things?" Repeat that phrase a few times in your mind - if you don't see the absurdity of it, I can't help you.

A person chooses to believe.

It's nice to believe that we're in control of our fate, and that we are what we make ourselves, rather than what others make us. Not true. We make choices and our choices determine who we are, but the options we choose from are largely determined. This is a bit beyond the point I was trying to make, but what the hell. :p

2. How, exactly, does that mean "the person who taught me that abused me"?

I thought, seeing as you were extending the idea of abuse to include the 'mental,' in quoting me, that I'd extrapolate a bit from there. ;)

1. Actually, I haven't disagreed with everyone in this thread. Some people on here have enough sense to believe that physically harming a child is abusive, and that there are other options when it comes to parenting."?

Hence "basically."

2. NSG isn't exactly representitive of a wide-spread opinion on things, so I highly doubt that the fact that less people think hurting a child is abusve on NSG really means that I'm part of a "minority".

I never said it was - I said that the fact that you're running contrary to basically everyone here should be a tip-off that you're "in the minority on this" issue. I wasn't appealing to NSG as a perfect microcosm of the world.

Of course pain is a bad thing. Why else would our body have the function of translating sensation to the brain as "pain"? When you put your hand on a hot surface, you think "owch" and you remove your hand, because "owch" is bad.

Pain is absolutely essential for our health and our survival:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/01/27/rare.conditions/index.html

Complete your own example: that "owch" just saved your hand, without which you'd be useless at a good number of things.

Its not necessary at all. Causing a child pain doesn't teach a child; it's punishment.

It *can* be necessary. It won't be in all cases. Punishment is a way of underscoring some lesson - within reason, it facilitates learning.

The actual presence of pain doesn't mean a child is being abused, but when a parent has purposely caused a child pain in the form of punishment, it's abusive.

To the degree that punishment facilitates learning, it isn't. I'm not expecting agreement from you of course, but you may want to consider which social forces have shaped your absolutist stand on this and why that is.

No. While children learn from the responses their parents make to certain things (for example, my mother always smells the milk and immediately throws it out if it smells even slightly off, and after seeing that as a child, I always do the same thing), the response to pain is not simply a "learnt" response. As I said above, pain - as a sensation - has a purpose, and if someone get's smacked it's still going to hurt them, and being hurt HURTS.

"Being hurt hurts" fascinating - I'll write that down. :p

Seriously though, yes, our experience of pain is in part a function of our upbringing. Not entirely, but to a large extent. This is a fact of medical science - it is testable, and you can research it yourself. I've already mentioned that this is not *my* hypothesis, but rather an agreed-upon principle of neurology and psychology.

Pain is a part of life: We fall down the stairs, we stub our toes, we get stomach aches, but pain intentionally caused by a parent in the form of punishment is not a part of everyday life.

Hopefully not. Punishment in general should be used sparingly, I do think.

PS: No one is going to fall for your faux-psychology BS.

Again, it's not *mine* and it's not false. I'm not being obscurantist here - you're online, do a search. I'll do one for you:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/8/2

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:otvIjYuLe0sJ:pediatric-pain.ca/ppl/issues/v7n1_2005/v7n1_hatchette.pdf+socialization+and+pain&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

That took all of three seconds. Those articles mightn't be absolutely germaine to parenting and early childhood, but from my quick scan of the search results, they repeat the fact that pain response is socially conditioned. Your use of "p.s." didn't make any sense, by the way.

Edit: To quote the former article:

Recurrent pain is a common complaint among adolescents. Children learn to resolve or cope with pain largely through family dynamics, particularly maternal influences. By adolescence, young people possess an array of pain behaviors, the culmination of multiple opportunities for modeling and reinforcement of attitudes and beliefs about pain

Double edit: not that I'm suggesting chronic and acute pain (as would be applied in punishment) are the same, obviously. But the rest is relevant.

I agree that the whole picture needs to be considered. If you actually read what I've said, you'd see that I think that this incident may not be wholly indicative of the mother's overall behaviour, and the child's home situation must be taken into account before the child is removed from the home.

Yes, you said that. I never said you were incapable of applying common sense, and you certainly did there - congrats. :)

However, your 2nd point is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge of psychology, because I've you're going to be making statements such as those, you should at least have a little knowledge to back it up.

It's unacceptable to you because it undermines your argument, but it certainly isn't ridiculous. I don't, despite having studied psychology extensively, claim to be an expert. I'm always learning new things, and always reading - it's my job, after all. :) I wouldn't do it for a living if I didn't enjoy helping people, and I hope I've helped a little here.

Don't sound so confident... My dad was (and still is) abusive, and he deals with pain (whether it be incidental or otherwise) by screaming, yelling, and throwing things. From the very first moment I ever witnessed his reactions, I knew something was just plain off about it.

Believe me, I've spent an immeasureable amount of time with my dad, and I don't act anything like the man. Then again, I've always been really independent... For the most part.

I'd argue that your view and reaction of pain is still probably influenced on your father's example. It's just that you were so repulsed by his version that you decided to take a left where he went right, so to speak.

Then again, I'm no psychiatrist.

Don't sound so confident... My dad was (and still is) abusive, and he deals with pain (whether it be incidental or otherwise) by screaming, yelling, and throwing things. From the very first moment I ever witnessed his reactions, I knew something was just plain off about it.

Believe me, I've spent an immeasureable amount of time with my dad, and I don't act anything like the man. Then again, I've always been really independent... For the most part.

He thinks he's a psychologist, unfortunately.

Right. Like I was saying (or rather 'repeating,' since this is a known medical/psychological fact, and testable), our experience of pain depends on the socialization process; you're talking about an abusive father, whose coping methods regarding pain are extreme rather than reasonable. It's not surprising then, that you would see that as a conflict and a harmful thing fairly quickly.

:rolleyes:

"People don't teach you to believe things?" Repeat that phrase a few times in your mind - if you don't see the absurdity of it, I can't help you.

It's nice to believe that we're in control of our fate, and that we are what we make ourselves, rather than what others make us. Not true. We make choices and our choices determine who we are, but the options we choose from are largely determined. This is a bit beyond the point I was trying to make, but what the hell. :p

This has nothing to do with fate. Perhaps you should repeat what I've said in your mind, then you might understand it.

No one has taught me to believe that hurting kids = abuse. I may have been influenced by other people, but that's different to being taught it. You aren't always to believe, because, in the end, the majority of us are free thinking human beings.



I thought, seeing as you were extending the idea of abuse to include the 'mental,' in quoting me, that I'd extrapolate a bit from there. ;)

So you think that it's mental abuse to influence someone to think that physically hurting children is abuse? You clearly have some problems.


I never said it was - I said that the fact that you're running contrary to basically everyone here should be a tip-off that you're "in the minority on this" issue. I wasn't appealing to NSG as a perfect microcosm of the world.

Even if I were a minority, it wouldn't mean I was wrong.



Pain is absolutely essential for our health and our survival:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/01/27/rare.conditions/index.html

Complete your own example: that "owch" just saved your hand, without which you'd be useless at a good number of things.

Duh. Thank you for affirming my point.


It *can* be necessary. It won't be in all cases. Punishment is a way of underscoring some lesson - within reason, it facilitates learning.

Only people who are incapable of disciplining their children in other ways have to resort to violence.

To the degree that punishment facilitates learning, it isn't.
Yes, it is.

You don't need to purposely physicall harm a child to teach them anything.

I'm not expecting agreement from you of course, but you may want to consider which social forces have shaped your absolutist stand on this and why that is.

My absolutist stand? Puh-lease. You're absolute in your opinion, and I'm absolute in mine.

The difference is that I'm right. :p

"Being hurt hurts" fascinating - I'll write that down. :p

Well, at least I taught you something. I thought I'd speak in terms you'd understand.

And I didn't even need to spank you to teach it to you, either!

Seriously though, yes, our experience of pain is in part a function of our upbringing. Not entirely, but to a large extent. This is a fact of medical science - it is testable, and you can research it yourself. I've already mentioned that this is not *my* hypothesis, but rather an agreed-upon principle of neurology and psychology.

People's responses may differ, but the fact that a person experiences pain doesn't change.

Just because a child has been smacked, and doesn't cry, doesn't mean that child wasn't physically hurt. It also doesn't mean that the physical pain hasn't affected him in other ways.

Plus: "[You're] no psychiatrist!"


Hopefully not. Punishment in general should be used sparingly, I do think.

Why? Everything you've said so far leans toward justifying physical punishment.



It's unacceptable to you because it undermines your argument, but it certainly isn't ridiculous. I don't, despite having studied psychology extensively, claim to be an expert. I'm always learning new things, and always reading - it's my job, after all. :) I wouldn't do it for a living if I didn't enjoy helping people, and I hope I've helped a little here.

It is ridiculous, and you haven't helped. You've just practically justified physical punishment of children. Clearly, millions of kids will be sending you thank you baskets. :rolleyes:

Then again, I'm no psychiatrist.

No, you're not.

No, you're not.

I know. That's exactly what I just said. So was there any point to that at all?

He thinks he's a psychologist, unfortunately.

:rolleyes:



I think you're being childish. I've never claimed any such thing. My formal education was in philosophy (pre-law) and psychology (emphasis in criminal justice). As a librarian, one of my jobs is to locate articles for people interested in those topics.

I wouldn't appeal to my education, especially since anyone can claim anything they like online, but if you're going to disregard the most salient portions of my response to you (the ones dealing with actual science, rather than my conclusions) then perhaps I'll persuade *someone* to learn something by mentioning those things, if you aren't interested.

This has nothing to do with fate. Perhaps you should repeat what I've said in your mind, then you might understand it.

No one has taught me to believe that hurting kids = abuse. I may have been influenced by other people, but that's different to being taught it. You aren't always to believe, because, in the end, the majority of us are free thinking human beings.

I wasn't referring to some mystical sense of the word, in choosing 'fate.' I meant it in the sense that our identities are not our own creations. This, as I clearly mentioned, was only tangentially related to the main issue of pain and punishment. That is something I could go on endlessly about, though, on another occasion. :p

So you think that it's mental abuse to influence someone to think that physically hurting children is abuse? You clearly have some problems.

I thought that your statement, being as it was a rather extreme opinion, suggested that you'd been socialized in a way that *I* might classify as abuse, in that it would offend my sensibilites, sure. Remember though, that I was playing devil's advocate there - I don't think you've been abused, no.

Even if I were a minority, it wouldn't mean I was wrong.

Not for that reason alone. It's not a bad reason to re-examine one's views, however.

Duh. Thank you for affirming my point.

Pain is neither bad nor good in itself. That was my point. Yours was that pain is never good, which I think is shown to be quite false both by your example and the one I linked to. It also shows that pain is essential in certain forms of learning. Assuming that learning is good, I think it follows that pain can be a good thing.

Only people who are incapable of disciplining their children in other ways have to resort to violence.

You don't need to purposely physicall harm a child to teach them anything.

I'm defending the use of punishment as an ethical method of parenting, not recommending it over other methods.

My absolutist stand? Puh-lease. You're absolute in your opinion, and I'm absolute in mine.

The difference is that I'm right. :p

My opinion doesn't apply dogma to a complex issue.

People's responses may differ, but the fact that a person experiences pain doesn't change.

Just because a child has been smacked, and doesn't cry, doesn't mean that child wasn't physically hurt. It also doesn't mean that the physical pain hasn't affected him in other ways.

I've never claimed pain to be entirely psychogenic, nor would I. Pain, especially chronic pain, originates to a large extent from the emotional response centers of the brain and is largely conditioned by one's caretakers. This isn't to say that you should train your kids not to feel, or brutalize them. Brutilization of children is correlated to a whole host of undesirable behaviors later in life, and can affect psychosexual development in profound ways.

Plus: "[You're] no psychiatrist!"

Again, I know. ;) Neither are the vast majority of people who have studied psychology academically.

Why? Everything you've said so far leans toward justifying physical punishment.

The word 'sparingly' is rather important there.

Okay, let's change gears a bit: suppose you watched a video of a woman get pinned up against a wall by a man with her arms behind her back in a painful position and saw him yank her pants off. Would the fact that he didn't actually penetrate or leave any bruises make this any less a felony offense? If your answer is no, then you'd be goddamned right: the very act of domination for the sake of domination degrades her as a person. But of course, the same thing applies to a child.


And then you discover that she's into domination and he's really her bf...

Pain is absolutely essential for our health and our survival:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/01/27/rare.conditions/index.html

Complete your own example: that "owch" just saved your hand, without which you'd be useless at a good number of things.

Pain is neither bad nor good in itself. That was my point. Yours was that pain is never good, which I think is shown to be quite false both by your example and the one I linked to. It also shows that pain is essential in certain forms of learning. Assuming that learning is good, I think it follows that pain can be a good thing.

Um. The whole reason why experiencing pain is good and useful is that pain itself is known to be inherently bad. If you burn your hand and say "owch", it is because being burned is bad. If humans did not naturally assume that pain was inherently bad, the whole point of pain in the examples is worthless.

I wouldn't appeal to my education, especially since anyone can claim anything they like online, but if you're going to disregard the most salient portions of my response to you (the ones dealing with actual science, rather than my conclusions) then perhaps I'll persuade *someone* to learn something by mentioning those things, if you aren't interested.

The reason why I didn't respond to the websites you posted was because of exactly that, and instead of criticising you for practically Googling "zomg i like to hit kids", I just left it alone.

I wasn't referring to some mystical sense of the word, in choosing 'fate.' I meant it in the sense that our identities are not our own creations. This, as I clearly mentioned, was only tangentially related to the main issue of pain and punishment. That is something I could go on endlessly about, though, on another occasion. :p

If it wasn't related to the issue, there was no real point bring it up.


I thought that your statement, being as it was a rather extreme opinion, suggested that you'd been socialized in a way that *I* might classify as abuse, in that it would offend my sensibilites, sure. Remember though, that I was playing devil's advocate there - I don't think you've been abused, no.

You either think I've been abused, or you don't. Being "socialised" to think that hurting children is abuse is not abuse.

And it's not an extremist opinion, unless it's common where you come from for people to think harming children is acceptable.

Not for that reason alone. It's not a bad reason to re-examine one's views, however.

Ha!

A minority of Hungarians thought killing Jews was bad. Were they wrong?


Pain is neither bad nor good in itself. That was my point. Yours was that pain is never good, which I think is shown to be quite false both by your example and the one I linked to. It also shows that pain is essential in certain forms of learning. Assuming that learning is good, I think it follows that pain can be a good thing.

:rolleyes:

Take it away, Hamilay:
Um. The whole reason why experiencing pain is good and useful is that pain itself is known to be inherently bad. If you burn your hand and say "owch", it is because being burned is bad. If humans did not naturally assume that pain was inherently bad, the whole point of pain in the examples is worthless.




I'm defending the use of punishment as an ethical method of parenting, not recommending it over other methods.

But if there are so many other methods that do not cause harm, how is ever choosing one that does cause harm ever ethical?

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
B: "Read her a story."

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
C: "Tell her if she doesn't go to bed, she'll be tired tomorrow."

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
D: "I'll go tell her that if she doesn't go to bed, she's not allowed to go to the movies tomorrow."

Those are all legitimite options, but you, no, you're different...

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
E: Just smack her. It's ethical.



My opinion doesn't apply dogma to a complex issue.

It's not a complex issue, and I'm not applying dogma - I'm applying human decency and common sence.



I've never claimed pain to be entirely psychogenic, nor would I. Pain, especially chronic pain, originates to a large extent from the emotional response centers of the brain and is largely conditioned by one's caretakers. This isn't to say that you should train your kids not to feel, or brutalize them. Brutilization of children is correlated to a whole host of undesirable behaviors later in life, and can affect psychosexual development in profound ways.

So it's okay to physically hurt but not to "brutilize"? There's levels of OKAYNESS in HURTING PEOPLE? I'll have to remember that, because it'll be okay if I'm raped gently, but if it's brutal, shit, that could fuck me up. :rolleyes:

And then you discover that she's into domination and he's really her bf...

And it'll be cool if we discover that the 2-year-old is really into getting hurt by a pressure hose.

Without any reinforcement from society (there wouldn't likely be any) that effort would probably fail. Not that it's the same thing - the emotional experience of the abuse can be conditioned, but there's a difference between the degree to which physical pain is psychogenic in origin and the degree to which emotional abuse resonates in a person given their cultural context, etc.

There's little reinforcement in my society in regard to hurting children, either.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in your pseudo-academic nonsense anymore. Come back when you've taken Compassion101 and LifeExperience205.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Also, governments are out of control too. In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.

http://www.wesh.com/news/15528862/detail.html

Is every form of child discipline we disagree with automatically child abuse?

Firstly you can't play the blame game, oh its the government oh its the parent but yes there are certain factors like how upity the kid was getting. It is not always black and white there are diferent shades of gray. Lastly look into the child abuse disagreement

My eyes and ears.

In other words, you pulled it from ass-space, which is useless.

There are a few things-we have to be careful where we draw the line as to whether 'bad parenting' is a federal case. You'll not find me agreeing that this was the best or even a good way to deal with the child. But simply because I feel it was a stupid and unnecessary thing to do I don't think it merits the more damaging in my opinion act of arresting her mother and tearing the home apart. At best it might merit an examination of the conditions the child is raised under to ensure it's not a glut of bad decisions, but thats it.

The second is to not to make too much of the humiliation factor. When I was 3 it still wasn't uncommon for me to run outside without pants and I was at least two years away from understanding the sentence, "You're making a scene." I'm not diminishing the mental state of the kid, again-not the best reaction, but I don't think we do much by overstating it either.

On the other hand -- can't it be said that the whole situation surrounding this -- the arrest, the publicity, the investigation which may or may not find that there was aubse -- will put the mother on notice, via some very unpleasant events, "This is not the way to deal with the situation"? The knowledge that she's going to be scrutinized may well encourage her to clean up her act.

A slap on the bottom is different to being grounded. You realise that, right?
Yes. Differing degrees of bad behavior and differing degrees of cognition would lead to which one was selected. YOU understand that, don't you?

I don't know what I disagree with more: your father's bad parenting, or the fact that you think his actions were acceptable.
The fact that you said this after I explained that this was the discipline my father had, not meted out, shows you misunderstood what was written. You should also understand that physical discipline certainly was NOT used or appropriate for every "infraction" -- I probably was hit a grand total of ten times, and for what? Running out in the street in front of a car... throwing something in anger that cut my cousin just under the eye... seriously dangerous stuff.

No. Good parents are able to control their kids, and prevent them from running rampant in shopping centres. They achieve this by teaching their children how to behave in public, not by resorting physical voilence.
In your opinion. I have seen plenty of people who refuse to ever spank and have the same conversation over and over and over about how dangerous it is to run away, how obnoxious it is to disturb people. You know what? in many cases, it makes no impression on the kid and thirteen years later, you have a BIGGER problem.

I agree, but I don't think children should be hurt, ever.
And you seem to think that a smack on the bottom is equivalent to pummelling, kicking, starving, beating -- and it's just not.
What's sad is that people who have been beaten as children DEFEND the behaviour. Do you really think that being beaten made you a better person? Do you really think it was your parents' right to hurt you? And do you really think that society should continue such inhumane practices?
There is a difference between being beaten and being spanked. Hysteria does not make them the same thing.

For the record -- spanking over a toilet training mistake would have been completely inappropriate -- the child has no control over it. An eight year old grabbing a toy from a two year old and hitting them with it -- that's grounds for being sent to a room and being lectured. An eight year old doing it again a week later? I'd think a slap on their clothed bottom would not be excessive.

Kids don't have it easy: it's hard enough growing up as it is; children don't need extra bullshit like abusive parents.What you consider abusive seems to be much less than what this woman did. Is raising your voice abusive? Is shoving your kid's hand away from a hot stove abusive, or should we allow her the learning experience of second degree burns?

It might not be a "federal case of child abuse" but it's still abusive. Agreed.


A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
B: "Read her a story."

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
C: "Tell her if she doesn't go to bed, she'll be tired tomorrow."

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
D: "I'll go tell her that if she doesn't go to bed, she's not allowed to go to the movies tomorrow."

Those are all legitimite options, but you, no, you're different...

A: "Oh, little Sally doesn't want to go to bed."
E: Just smack her. It's ethical.
If you think that the majority of people who would advocate spanking would think that the proper response to this problem, you're nuts.
If you're using hyperbole, it's an example that's utterly ridiculous.

Additionally, option A rewards a behavior you don't want: you teach them that whining and staying up = getting a story.
What's to keep Sally from pushing the envelope later, and later, and later. since she knows her reward is staying up later AND getting a story?

I'd tell her she'll be tired tomorrow, and as a result -- (if she were cranky and tired in the morning) whatever we were supposed to do (go to the museum, go to the movies) would be postponed until a later date.

Unless you think someone who is not against spanking would beat her and lock her in the closet?

In other words, you pulled it from opinion-space, which is basically useless.In made up words you might choose to put in people's mouths maybe. In my dictionary, stuff you sense with your eyes and ears is called "observation".

In made up words you might choose to put in people's mouths maybe. In my dictionary, stuff you sense with your eyes and ears is called "observation".

So you can read minds, and know it is out of spite?
Interesting. What am I thinking now?

And what words and I putting in your mouth? Are you going to deny you said this:

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Today's parent often often communicates to their kid that they are a bad person,
and does so with spite. From the stories I'm told by people older than me, discipline used to be doled out with less emotional vitriol, which IMO is what's creating many of the problems with kids these days.

It's opinion, opinion, and anecdote. You SAY parents hate their kids and are spiteful: prove it. Show a study. Anything.

So you can read minds, and know it is out of spite?
Interesting.If not being autistic = reading minds, then sure.

What am I thinking now?I can't read your body-language and tone across the Internet, but I from the text I suspect that you think I'm your typical arrogant Internet blowhard douchebag who holds opinions simply for the sake of holding them.

And what words and I putting in your mouth? Are you going to deny you said this:
In other words...

Are you going to deny you said this:I can tell what people communicate to other people. I can tell when people hate other people. I can even usually tell by the context what they hate about them. Does that make me some kind of super-hero mind reader? No, it just means I have the same observational social skills that anybody would have if they paid attention.

It's opinion, opinion, and anecdote.Whether parents harbor animosity toward their children is a matter of fact. In this either I'm right or wrong. Whether this animosity is acceptable or not is a matter of opinion.

You SAY parents hate their kids and are spiteful: prove it. Show a study. Anything.I'm testifying that I've witnessed a statistically significant sample. It's perfectly valid for you not to believe me, but please don't criticize me for posting what I've learned from personal experiences. It's un-moderator-like.

Yes. Differing degrees of bad behavior and differing degrees of cognition would lead to which one was selected. YOU understand that, don't you?

Personally, I don't feel that physical harm ever needs to be selected.


The fact that you said this after I explained that this was the discipline my father had, not meted out, shows you misunderstood what was written.

My apologies.

You should also understand that physical discipline certainly was NOT used or appropriate for every "infraction" -- I probably was hit a grand total of ten times, and for what? Running out in the street in front of a car... throwing something in anger that cut my cousin just under the eye... seriously dangerous stuff.

I can't see how spanking a child for running in front of a car will teach them not to do it. At school, I was given a detention in Grade Two for hiding underneath a car with a friend in a game of hide-and-seek. I never understood what I did wrong, except for the fact that the teachers got angry at me about it. When my parents found out, they did the right thing, and instead of punishing me without explanation, they taught me about how dangerous cars can be, and in the process I learnt not only to not hide underneath cars, but to not walk behind them and look both ways etc.

In your opinion. I have seen plenty of people who refuse to ever spank and have the same conversation over and over and over about how dangerous it is to run away, how obnoxious it is to disturb people. You know what? in many cases, it makes no impression on the kid and thirteen years later, you have a BIGGER problem.

Oh, please. If the child can't understand conversation, either the parents aren't particularly good parents or the child isn't particularly bright.

Plus, there are still other options, and if conversation doesn't stop a child running away, there are "disciplinary tactics" that don't require physical violence. How is smacking a child going to make him not want to run away?

And you seem to think that a smack on the bottom is equivalent to pummelling, kicking, starving, beating -- and it's just not. There is a difference between being beaten and being spanked. Hysteria does not make them the same thing.

No, it's not equivalent. Smacking is abusive, and beating is abusive too. It's always wrong to physically harm children, but if a child is being beaten/starved/kicked, he/she should be removed from the home.



For the record -- spanking over a toilet training mistake would have been completely inappropriate -- the child has no control over it. An eight year old grabbing a toy from a two year old and hitting them with it -- that's grounds for being sent to a room and being lectured. An eight year old doing it again a week later? I'd think a slap on their clothed bottom would not be excessive.

Okay, I'll let you have your opinion, but...

According to the article, it was about a trantrum. And it wasn't an 8-year-old. She was two.

What you consider abusive seems to be much less than what this woman did. Is raising your voice abusive? Is shoving your kid's hand away from a hot stove abusive, or should we allow her the learning experience of second degree burns?

Purposely physically harming a child is abusive. Shoving a child's hand away from a hot stove to prevent her being burt, is not purposely physically harming a child.


If you think that the majority of people who would advocate spanking would think that the proper response to this problem, you're nuts.
If you're using hyperbole, it's an example that's utterly ridiculous.

Perhaps you didn't detect the hint of sarcasm.

TPC had a very good point, that people are conditioned to respond differently to pain. There is some basic level at which pain is equivalent to harm (burning yourself or the grief of loss) but questions of whether the pain causes lasting trauma depend very much on the individual and the context.

Pain and harm are not directly equivalent. A person can be harmed without feeling pain, and feel pain without being harmed.

My eyes and ears.

Well then we can basically assume you are full of it.

Well then we can basically assume you are full of it.
Yes, because clearly I must be LYING if I disagree with you, jackass.

Yes, because clearly I must be LYING if I disagree with you, jackass.

No, its just that making stupid claims like "Parents punish their kids and tell them the reason is because theyre worthless ZOMG!" is a stupid blanket statement, and when asked to provide a source you said "What I see and hear". Well guess what bud, in my experiance youre way off the mark, so Id say your statement that "parents" do this is false.


You just must be around shitty parents a lot.

PersonallyOh, please. If the child can't understand conversation, either the parents aren't particularly good parents or the child isn't particularly bright.


Have you ever tried to talk to a two year old?

The reason why I didn't respond to the websites you posted was because of exactly that, and instead of criticising you for practically Googling "zomg i like to hit kids", I just left it alone.

The fact that "anyone can claim anything" online is exactly why I provided scholarly sources. If you prefer your dogma to behavioral science, then that's fine, but don't claim to be on the side of science in this debate if that's your attitude.

You either think I've been abused, or you don't. Being "socialised" to think that hurting children is abuse is not abuse.

That was a reductio ad absurdum of your earlier pronouncements - for the second time, no, I don't think you've been abused in the sense that I would normally apply the word.

And it's not an extremist opinion, unless it's common where you come from for people to think harming children is acceptable.

Pain doesn't necessitate harm, again. Please let this be the last time I have to say it - we can agree to disagree on that point if you like.

It's not a complex issue, and I'm not applying dogma - I'm applying human decency and common sence.

Human behavioral development isn't a complex issue? That's what I was addressing, and it absolutely is a complex issue.

So it's okay to physically hurt but not to "brutilize"? There's levels of OKAYNESS in HURTING PEOPLE? I'll have to remember that, because it'll be okay if I'm raped gently, but if it's brutal, shit, that could fuck me up. :rolleyes:

Are you consciously trying to be histrionic here, or does that come naturally?

The amazing thing about subjecting behavior to quantitative analysis, is how constantly it demonstrates how wonderful the human mind is at extrapolating conceptual rules from specific stimuli. You'll never need to harm your child, and social workers are right to take them from you if that's what you're doing. Unless your child has some sort of retrograde amnesia or developmental disability, to the point that he/she can't learn in the traditional sense, then you will *never* have to ask yourself whether you're 'brutalizing' him or her, because you'll never be *anywhere* near that point.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in your pseudo-academic nonsense anymore. Come back when you've taken Compassion101 and LifeExperience205.

I hope you're not implying that behavioral principles can't be applied compassionately - that would be an ignorant position, after all, and I know you wouldn't want to perpetuate an ignorant position. ;)

TPC had a very good point, that people are conditioned to respond differently to pain. There is some basic level at which pain is equivalent to harm (burning yourself or the grief of loss) but questions of whether the pain causes lasting trauma depend very much on the individual and the context.

Pain and harm are not directly equivalent. A person can be harmed without feeling pain, and feel pain without being harmed.

You've hit the nail on the head there - that's a very clear explication of the central point, and I probably could've avoided some misunderstanding if I'd put it that way to begin with. :)

According to the article, it was about a trantrum. And it wasn't an 8-year-old. She was two.

I think we already agreed that this lady was out of line. Hosing her was bad because she can't understand what she's doing wrong.

That the whole donnybrook was started over a toilet training accident -- something that the kid has no control over -- was also wrong.

No, its just that making stupid claims like "Parents punish their kids and tell them the reason is because theyre worthless ZOMG!" is a stupid blanket statement,That wasn't exactly the generalization I made.

and when asked to provide a source you said "What I see and hear". Well guess what bud, in my experiance youre way off the mark, so Id say your statement that "parents" do this is false.
Wait, so you're criticizing me for using experience as a source when it's yours too?

You just must be around shitty parents a lot.It would seem so.

Wait, so you're criticizing me for using experience as a source when it's yours too?

I think it was more of a show of how he could counter it just by saying that his experience is otherwise. As in that it really wasn't a great argument since it just ends up with Uh-huh and Nuh-uh being thrown around.

Wait, so you're criticizing me for using experience as a source when it's yours too?




Thats my point. Experiance is a shit source in debates because everyones experiance is different.

And it'll be cool if we discover that the 2-year-old is really into getting hurt by a pressure hose.

If you read my post you'll see that the point was that things may not always be what they seem. If you see a video of a guy shove a woman up against a wall and pull her pants down what do you automatically assume?
Just because you're assuming she was being assaulted doesn't mean that she was.

In relation to the child, it means that just because she's screaming doesn't mean she's necessarily in pain, it could just be that it was a shock, unpleasant and/or humiliating, or she could even have still been screaming from a tantrum.

That being said, I don't think the mother was in the right, spraying your kid with a pressure hose is dangerous, even if it was on a low setting, you can't guarantee that something might go wrong. It would have been a much better idea to fill a bucket with water and dump it over her head. But she didn't.
I do doubt, however, that the intention was to hurt the child. More just to give her a bit of a shock and an unpleasant experience for the temper-tantrum.

If you read my post you'll see that the point was that things may not always be what they seem. If you see a video of a guy shove a woman up against a wall and pull her pants down what do you automatically assume?
Just because you're assuming she was being assaulted doesn't mean that she was.

In relation to the child, it means that just because she's screaming doesn't mean she's necessarily in pain, it could just be that it was a shock, unpleasant and/or humiliating, or she could even have still been screaming from a tantrum.

That being said, I don't think the mother was in the right, spraying your kid with a pressure hose is dangerous, even if it was on a low setting, you can't guarantee that something might go wrong. It would have been a much better idea to fill a bucket with water and dump it over her head. But she didn't.
I do doubt, however, that the intention was to hurt the child. More just to give her a bit of a shock and an unpleasant experience for the temper-tantrum.

Of course I see the point, but it doesn't change the fact that a woman put a pressure hose on a 2-year-old child. She's two, for God's sake. Of course the intention was to hurt the child, and that's the premise of most people's arguments for her actions, except they call inflicting pain "discipline".

The fact that "anyone can claim anything" online is exactly why I provided scholarly sources. If you prefer your dogma to behavioral science, then that's fine, but don't claim to be on the side of science in this debate if that's your attitude.

I'm not claiming to be on a "scientific" side of this debate.



That was a reductio ad absurdum of your earlier pronouncements - for the second time, no, I don't think you've been abused in the sense that I would normally apply the word.

Clearly you said what you said for no reason at all, then, because I've asked you to explain it twice, and you're incapable.


Pain doesn't necessitate harm, again. Please let this be the last time I have to say it - we can agree to disagree on that point if you like.

:rolleyes:


Are you consciously trying to be histrionic here, or does that come naturally?

No, I was being sarcastic, but good work on trying to pseudo-analyse me.

[I hope you're not implying that behavioral principles can't be applied compassionately - that would be an ignorant position, after all, and I know you wouldn't want to perpetuate an ignorant position.

No, I'm impying that if you learnt a little compassion and had more life experience, your opinion might change.

But again, good work on mistunderstanding me, yet again.

Have you ever tried to talk to a two year old?

Yes, I have. Perhaps I'm just better with children than the majority of the people on here.

Yes, I have. Perhaps I'm just better with children than the majority of the people on here.
You're probably right, but that's only because of statistics. Assuming that most people on this forum are absolutely horrible with children (considering the lackluster social skills of the average internet citizen), some members will just have to fill the role of the exception that confirms the rule.

IS it just me or have discussed this topic all before when she originally did this, a few months ago?

Or is this another incident.

And yes I do think that all forms of punishment which 'general' society i.e. the media frown on is considered child abuse

IS it just me or have discussed this topic all before when she originally did this, a few months ago?

Or is this another incident.

And yes I do think that all forms of punishment which 'general' society i.e. the media frown on is considered child abuse

It's not just you, it's a gravedig, check the dates.

It's not just you, it's a gravedig, check the dates.

Oh yeah. Duh If I looked hard enough I would have seen my own posts

Hurdegaryp you grave digger. I bet you use some of the parts for your own twisted experiments.

Parents are out of control. They hate their children because they raise them as pets and trophies. I don't think discipline used to be such an emotional event back in the day, but now parents rage at their kids for acting like kids as if it were some personal affront to their superiority as adults.

Also, governments are out of control too. In a less dysfunctional society, it would be her neighbors intervening - it would have been the other person at the car wash stopping her, not a bureaucratic governmental process to sanction the parent and possibly render as much and more trauma to the kid by uprooting it and placing it in foster care.

What Tongass said.

*looks at his creation* It's Alive! It's alive!!!! AHHH HAHAHAHA!!!!!

....

*sniffsniff*


Ewwww!! Bury it! Bury it!!!!

Nasty, and depending on the setting of the hose, probably abuse. At the very least, its not a way I would ever treat my kid, in the unlikely event that I ever chose to have one.

no bumps no bruises seems like the moms story of didn't have it on high pressure seems correct. no injury to the child means it was not abuse the pressure wasn't set high enough.

*looks at his creation* It's Alive! It's alive!!!! AHHH HAHAHAHA!!!!!

*sniffsniff*

Ewwww!! Bury it! Bury it!!!!

This is why Zombies will take over the world, for every person shouting 'Lord have mercy, it's zombies, run for your lives...', there's like 15 others walking blithely by, i-pods on and popping in to make a comment shortly before having their brains munched out.