Why people have so many children? [Archive]

GeorginaS

Apr23-10, 10:34 PM

While one partner is off work every other month?

It used to be only one parent worked, and the other stayed home to raise the kids. What's wrong with that strategy?

The thing that tended to be wrong with that strategy was the economic disadvantage, and therefore power inequity disadvantage, one parent wound up having. In an ideal world, it's a great strategy for raising children. In reality, the cost is awfully high on the parent that stays home.

I understand that, not so very long ago, children didn't all make it to adulthood, so people needed to have more than one or two to ensure some reasonable rate of family survival.

As a kid from a two-child family -- which two children could not manage to get along through childhood and all through adulthood -- it strikes me now that it would be kind of nice to have at least one more sibling to count on. My sister died when she was 45 and that leaves me alone to contend with my aging parents. They go, and I'm pretty much entirely alone out here. One other sibling would have been handy.

Kajahtava

Apr23-10, 10:34 PM

To slightly twist the topic by the way. I see a lot of people saying that abortion is unethical, but how ethical is it to create sentient life?

Especially if it's sentient life you have a certain control over in this society that some'd say borders in slavery.

GeorginaS

Apr23-10, 10:39 PM

I grew up in the 60-70's and at that time there was a movement here called "Zero Population Growth". It really had an impact on me. For the first time I realized how much the population was destroying the earth.

I decided to have no children, but my second husband insisted on having children, but I refused to have more than the two that was environmentally sound.

No one "needs" children. More than two per couple is not considered ecologically sustainable.

Evo, I saw this author interviewed on The Daily Show last night. His research in his new book are pretty interesting and flip that whole over-populating the world notion on its head. Fascinating how entire social revolutions can happen so quickly and not in ways we'd anticipated. I remember hearing all the same stuff as you did about population growth when I was a kid.

The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Population-Crash-Planets-Surprising/dp/0807085839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272080169&sr=8-1)

rootX

Apr23-10, 10:41 PM

While one partner is off work every other month?

It used to be only one parent worked, and the other stayed home to raise the kids. What's wrong with that strategy?

1) Everyone deserves a life outside their family. Staying home is just wrong because all you have in your life is your family to take care of when there is a big world beyond your family
2) It would only work if one partner is making sufficient money

DaveC426913

Apr23-10, 10:41 PM

People are naïve and like to believe that having children comes down to what it's in their mind, rather than nappies, annoying 'no' phases, puberty, and then leaving your home in a fight, and finally either not speaking to you again, or putting you away in a home.

And consequently, in their naïvety, they also believe it, because they believe what they like to believe.

They are not naive (at least not generally). People have children knowing it will be challenging. Few people who have had children say they regret it.

No one "needs" children.

After food, water and shelter, there aren't a lot of things more imperative and more of a right than having offspring.

Kajahtava

Apr23-10, 10:47 PM

They are not naive (at least not generally). People have children knowing it will be challenging. Few people who have had children say they regret it.Not to others though, often enough to their own children.

It's called the outward façade of a functioning family. Mum was always just a bit more patient with me when people were visiting.

Besides, how many people that consciously stayed childless you think regretted it? Extra vacation in Spain together, no stress that your child isn't going to pass this year, no babysitters, the good life indeed.

rootX

Apr23-10, 10:48 PM

I understand ever less why people want children in the third world by the way.

I started a thread about them about one year ago this time I excluded them and only considered the first world :smile:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=294346

lisab

Apr23-10, 10:55 PM

1) Everyone deserves a life outside their family. Staying home is just wrong because all you have in your life is your family to take care of when there is a big world beyond your family
2) It would only work if one partner is making sufficient money

Well an amazing thing happens when you have a child. It's like magic - you just want to spend time with your kid - talk, sing, play. Really, it's an incredible transformation.

In those formative years when my daughter was a small child, I found I had not the slightest interest in anything but my family. It wasn't wrong at all, your life is long and your kids are young for such a short time.

Kajahtava

Apr23-10, 10:59 PM

Well an amazing thing happens when you have a child. It's like magic - you just want to spend time with your kid - talk, sing, play. Really, it's an incredible transformation.Amazing isn't it? How your neurology is wired to make you love a person you don't even know simply because you have subconsciously determined that this individual is highly likely to share the most of your genetic code. Even worse, you subconsciously make yourself feel what is surely just pulling favours out of the principle of selfish genes is some-how a 'beautiful' thing, that you're willing to place one human being ahead of another simply because you've subconsciously determined that person shares more of those selfish genes of yours, magnificent, and highly depressing, not any less interesting.

rootX

Apr23-10, 11:13 PM

Amazing isn't it? How your neurology is wired to make you love a person you don't even know simply because you have subconsciously determined that this individual is highly likely to share the most of your genetic code. Even worse, you subconsciously make yourself feel what is surely just pulling favours out of the principle of selfish genes is some-how a 'beautiful' thing, that you're willing to place one human being ahead of another simply because you've subconsciously determined that person shares more of those selfish genes of yours, magnificent, and highly depressing, not any less interesting.

You never had a child? :rofl:

I can understand attachment for first few months/years.. but if it lasts longer than that, it is not only bad for children but also for the parents too IMO.

Kajahtava

Apr23-10, 11:22 PM

You never had a child? :rofl:Nahh, don't still have them either.

And despite my sharp wits, intellectual depth and ripe command of the English grammar, I am actually in my very early twenties. But do flatter me more as I'm currently on the brink of suicide, you might even make me naïve enough to continue going, who knows?

I can understand attachment for first few months/years.. but if it lasts longer than that, it is not only bad for children but also for the parents too IMO.So it's bad for the child if you lose attachment after a few months I am to understand from this post of yours?

Suddenly, I understand this past tense of 'to have' of yours...

DaveC426913

Apr23-10, 11:33 PM

Besides, how many people that consciously stayed childless you think regretted it? Extra vacation in Spain together...

...a good life indeed.
Precisely. A good life is subjective.

Some people feel a good life is lived for themselves, some people feel a good life is lived for their children. We all know it is utterly subjective.

Which is why this whole thread is silly.

Kajahtava

Apr24-10, 12:21 AM

Precisely. A good life is subjective.

Some people feel a good life is lived for themselves, some people feel a good life is lived for their children. We all know it is utterly subjective.

Which is why this whole thread is silly. I beg to differ, I'm pretty sure that people who have children pull their hairs out practically at some point about them thinking it's a big mistake, though not always.

Though people that consciously decided to not have children never pull their hairs thinking 'OMG, I should've taken children after all.'

Lisa!

Apr24-10, 02:07 AM

I wish we had a lorger family since it's really quiet and boring sometimes. I see my friends who have more sisters and brothers are usually busier and happier than the rest. Anyway although I like larg family and consider that sorta cute, I'm not going to have 1 myself since it's so difficult these days to have even 1 or 2 children...:smile:

Huckleberry

Apr24-10, 05:29 AM

I beg to differ, I'm pretty sure that people who have children pull their hairs out practically at some point about them thinking it's a big mistake, though not always.

Though people that consciously decided to not have children never pull their hairs thinking 'OMG, I should've taken children after all.' Having a child is a conscious choice, not merely a selfish or subconscious one. People make that choice knowing that there may be hardships that come with it. Instead of assuming that people who find raising a child stressful would be happier without their child, try asking someone in that situation if they would be happier without children. I'm sure you know someone. Then you may realize how unselfish the selfish gene can be, and how selfish conscious choices too often are.

I know a few thirty-something women who had decided earlier in their life to not have children and now are pulling their hair out about finding the right guy to have them with. Listening to them talk about boyfriends and babies about drives me nuts. Some women even broach the subject on a first date. That shouldn't surprise me, but it does. Point is, decisions don't always last a lifetime. They change as circumstances change. Maybe you'll notice it more as you get older and the people you know become somewhat different than you remember them being.

leroyjenkens

Apr24-10, 08:46 AM

I always wonder why people have ANY children. After seeing what my friend goes through with just one child, I couldn't handle it. First of all, they're disgusting. As far as I'm concerned, poop is the most vile thing on Earth and when you have a kid, your life revolves around poop.
And I really don't see the point of having a kid. It's a burden with not much reward. What's the reward? Having a cute baby to hold? Kittens are cuter than babies and no burden at all.

I also think having a bunch of kids is a little arrogant. What makes your DNA so great that you think it needs to be replicated? Yeah, you're so wonderful that we need more of you.
Today, having more children shows a sign of sucess and walethiness.
In reality it's the opposite of that. It's the poor families producing most of the children.

Kerrie

Apr24-10, 12:40 PM

I also think having a bunch of kids is a little arrogant. What makes your DNA so great that you think it needs to be replicated? Yeah, you're so wonderful that we need more of you.

In reality it's the opposite of that. It's the poor families producing most of the children.

There are plenty of people who adopt large amounts of children because they feel compassion for those children who have been abandoned, maybe compassion is in their DNA :wink:

GeorginaS

Apr24-10, 01:02 PM

Having a child is a conscious choice, not merely a selfish or subconscious one.

Having children is also very, very frequently an unintended consequence.

MotoH

Apr24-10, 01:17 PM

Borg

Apr24-10, 02:26 PM

For everyone that doesn't have children to reduce the population, I will have 3.

I am thinking of starting a farm and having my stock work there for free. 1,000 acres of corn harvested by children. Now that is they way I want to live.

For some reason, my first thought was "Please God, kill me now". http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy250/HughOfBorg/SuicideSmiley.gif

MotoH

Apr24-10, 02:33 PM

For some reason, my first thought was "Please God, kill me now". http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy250/HughOfBorg/SuicideSmiley.gif

You have just earned 10 more children, and 15 more acres.

Borg

Apr24-10, 02:42 PM

You have just earned 10 more children, and 15 more acres.

You are too weird. :rofl:

rootX

Apr24-10, 02:50 PM

For everyone that doesn't have children to reduce the population, I will have 3.

I am thinking of starting a farm and having my stock work there for free. 1,000 acres of corn harvested by children. Now that is they way I want to live.

What will happen to the land when you die and those 3 kids who would have to decide themselves how to distribute the output?

MotoH

Apr24-10, 03:46 PM

What will happen to the land when you die and those 3 kids who would have to decide themselves how to distribute the output?

Nonononono. The Ratio is 1:3. For every 1 couple/person who decides to not have kids, I will have three kids. Therefor I will hopefully have enough kids so they won't be over worked plowing and harvesting my 1,015 acres of land.

Choppy

Apr24-10, 05:52 PM

I've never understood why anyone would chose not to have children, provided they have the means and a partner with whom to raise them. I respect that decision, but I don't understand it.

pallidin

Apr24-10, 05:57 PM

rootX

Apr24-10, 06:02 PM

there is an idea floating around that minorities can increase significant legal change simply by having more of minority population(in the effort to raise it to a majority)
that type of idea works extremely well in a democratic society.

Very disturbing, but totally legal.

bs 2

pallidin

Apr24-10, 06:07 PM

bs 2

It's a true story. You know that.
Don't call something that's common sense BS.

MotoH

Apr24-10, 06:10 PM

Just like the Labour party wants more immigration in conservative voting towns to increase the labour party vote.

lisab

Apr24-10, 06:23 PM

There is an idea floating around that minorities can increase significant legal change simply by having more of minority population(in the effort to raise it to a majority)
That type of idea works extremely well in a democratic society.

Very disturbing, but totally legal.

But, in the US at least, by the second and definitely by the third generation they've totally integrated into mainstream culture.

Some of the most adamant people I know for tough immigration standards are the kids of immigrants, at least among my friends.

rootX

Apr24-10, 06:39 PM

It's a true story. You know that.
Don't call something that's common sense BS.

Yes, immigrants tend to segregate and promote laws favorable towards them but it is bit more complicated than that. There are far too many variables to consider e.g. their contributions. And, there are differences between different immigrants' generations. A big and complicated topic IMO that is not related to this thread.

leroyjenkens

Apr24-10, 09:45 PM

I've never understood why anyone would chose not to have children, provided they have the means and a partner with whom to raise them. I respect that decision, but I don't understand it.
Weighing the pros against the cons, it's not even close. I can't see why anyone would choose to have children. I can think of very few pros while on the other hand, I can make a list of cons that doesn't end.

What's not to understand?

MotoH

Apr24-10, 10:45 PM

Weighing the pros against the cons, it's not even close. I can't see why anyone would choose to have children. I can think of very few pros while on the other hand, I can make a list of cons that doesn't end.

What's not to understand?

I am going to assume you have never had a child. Children aren't the "problems" you think they are.

Kerrie

Apr25-10, 12:18 AM

Weighing the pros against the cons, it's not even close. I can't see why anyone would choose to have children. I can think of very few pros while on the other hand, I can make a list of cons that doesn't end.

What's not to understand?

Just because you have decided to not have children doesn't mean that it's the best decision for everyone.

Huckleberry

Apr25-10, 12:30 AM

Having children is also very, very frequently an unintended consequence. Pregnancy is frequently an unintended consequence. Having children, and raising them, is less unintentional than an unplanned pregnancy.

thack45

Apr25-10, 01:09 AM

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.How is it logical that one or two children are acceptable but more than three children are not?

Borg

Apr25-10, 05:13 AM

How is it logical that one or two children are acceptable but more than three children are not?

Because the Earth has limited resources. If every couple has one or two, the population stays stable or shrinks. More than that and the population grows. Eventually there will be so many people that the Earth will not be able to support them all.

leroyjenkens

Apr25-10, 07:01 AM

I am going to assume you have never had a child. Children aren't the "problems" you think they are.
I don't have to have a child to see lots of other people raise children, or know how hard of a time my parents had with my sister.
Just because you have decided to not have children doesn't mean that it's the best decision for everyone.
Everyone should do what they want. I never want to tell anyone what to do. But I can express my opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of those choices.
People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything. If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms. Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.

GeorginaS

Apr25-10, 10:53 AM

Pregnancy is frequently an unintended consequence. Having children, and raising them, is less unintentional than an unplanned pregnancy.

You're kidding me, right? You're busting out semantics suggesting that by "having" you meant "raising" children rather than "pregnancy/bearing" children?

So in here

Having a child is a conscious choice, not merely a selfish or subconscious one.

I know a few thirty-something women who had decided earlier in their life to not have children and now are pulling their hair out about finding the right guy to have them with. (emphasis mine)

you meant "rear" not "bear". If your intended use of language is so precise, maybe you'd like to use that precision when you write so you're clearly understood. Just a suggestion.

GeorginaS

Apr25-10, 10:55 AM

Because the Earth has limited resources. If every couple has one or two, the population stays stable or shrinks. More than that and the population grows. Eventually there will be so many people that the Earth will not be able to support them all.

Eventually there would be. But! Spiffy new research:

The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Population-Crash-Planets-Surprising/dp/0807085839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272080169&sr=8-1)

thack45

Apr25-10, 10:56 AM

Because the Earth has limited resources. If every couple has one or two, the population stays stable or shrinks. More than that and the population grows. Eventually there will be so many people that the Earth will not be able to support them all.Then wouldn't it be logical to have no children to make up for those among us who aren't aware of this?

quickme

Apr25-10, 11:35 AM

I want to have more than 5 children
Because I do not want be alone when I am old
I don't want to waste my life for lonely death and fade
I would love to see my next generation
I can stay alive without food, water and shelter, but I can not live in loneliness

Huckleberry

Apr25-10, 01:13 PM

You're kidding me, right? You're busting out semantics suggesting that by "having" you meant "raising" children rather than "pregnancy/bearing" children?

So in here

(emphasis mine)

you meant "rear" not "bear". If your intended use of language is so precise, maybe you'd like to use that precision when you write so you're clearly understood. Just a suggestion. I did assume the OP meant the bearing to term and rearing of children in the use of the word 'have'. I thought it was more germane to the topic to discuss children that are a part of the population, rather than ones that died in infancy or were terminated during pregnancy. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the OP's use of the word 'have'.

Unplanned pregnancies may happen frequently as a result of subconscious drives, but at some point bearing a child becomes a conscious choice that is not unintentional. Hopefully you understand why I thought we were applying the word 'have' to different meanings. I was trying to clarify a misunderstanding, not trying to be semantic.

bp_psy

Apr25-10, 01:20 PM

I can stay alive without food, water and shelter, but I can not live in loneliness

You should go out on the streets, don't eat and drink for a weak and then come and share the result. :rolleyes:

Office_Shredder

Apr25-10, 03:36 PM

You should go out on the streets, don't eat and drink for a weak and then come and share the result. :rolleyes:

What? He said he can't stay alive without those things

Jack21222

Apr25-10, 06:04 PM

What? He said he can't stay alive without those things

He clearly said "can," not "can't."

bp_psy

Apr25-10, 06:06 PM

What? He said he can't stay alive without those things
Where? Unless i didn't get some form of sarcasms his post says that he can live without food, water and shelter

Kerrie

Apr25-10, 06:13 PM

I don't have to have a child to see lots of other people raise children, or know how hard of a time my parents had with my sister.

Everyone should do what they want. I never want to tell anyone what to do. But I can express my opinion on the advantages and disadvantages of those choices.
People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything. If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms. Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.

Raising your own child and observing someone else are entirely two different experiences. Having been in both situations, raising my children has made me a better person. Many parents who do raise children also go through an amazing transformation of their perspectives that make them a better person. This is certainly something that can happen without having children, but a parent who has the dedication and love to raise a child NEVER regrets it.

Kudos to you that you have decided to not bring children in this world, it's probably for the best for you personally.

Office_Shredder

Apr25-10, 06:54 PM

Where? Unless i didn't get some form of sarcasms his post says that he can live without food, water and shelter

Wow, I thought it said "cant" in his post. It seemed like a really profound proclamation at the time. Ignore me, I'll crawl away now

rootX

Apr26-10, 01:08 AM

It is always wonderful and mesmerizing to see how happy a mom gets whenever you ask how her baby is doing and she goes into lengths explaining every single detail including changing diapers. One I encountered had only one baby at that time and were financially stable.

Reshma

Apr26-10, 03:35 AM

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.

The world population is not uniformly distributed and Asian countries like India, China and the South-east Asian countries comprise roughly 50% of the world's population! In such countries, I think it would be highly stupid to have more than two children (I would say one is enough). Both my parents come from large families but my parents and their siblings chose to have smaller families (1-2 children). But that doesn't seem to be the case with everyone.

But the situation seems different for sparsely populated nations like Australia and Canada and they are forced to rely on immigrants for human resource. Japan is facing a negative population growth with a high aged population. In fact the Japanese government is encouraging couples to have more than 2 children.

leroyjenkens

Apr26-10, 08:11 AM

Raising your own child and observing someone else are entirely two different experiences. Having been in both situations, raising my children has made me a better person. Many parents who do raise children also go through an amazing transformation of their perspectives that make them a better person.
So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?
but a parent who has the dedication and love to raise a child NEVER regrets it.
I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

rhody

Apr26-10, 08:55 AM

I think that creating/nurturing/raising children is a great gift and a huge responsibility. That being said, part of me wonders a bit, (one can never truly know what their motivation is) is the case with Jim and Michele Duggar whose family has now grown to 19 children: See: wiki-link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting#cite_note-9) and whose kid's names are (see list below), with Michele having been pregnant almost continuously for the last 22 years ! I don't even know where to begin, except to say that she must "like if that is possible, being pregnant, and can handle stress and multi-tasking better than most of us'". Beyond that, I have nooo idea...
1 Joshua James March 3, 1988 (1988-03-03) (age 22)
2 Jana Marie January 12, 1990 (1990-01-12) (age 20) Birth via C-section[18]
3 John-David
4 Jill Michelle May 17, 1991 (1991-05-17) (age 18)
5 Jessa Lauren November 4, 1992 (1992-11-04) (age 17)
6 Jinger Nicole December 21, 1993 (1993-12-21) (age 16)
7 Joseph Garrett January 20, 1995 (1995-01-20) (age 15)
8 Josiah Matthew August 28, 1996 (1996-08-28) (age 13)
9 Joy-Anna October 28, 1997 (1997-10-28) (age 12)
10 Jedidiah Robert December 30, 1998 (1998-12-30) (age 11)
11 Jeremiah Robert
12 Jason Michael April 21, 2000 (2000-04-21) (age 10)
13 James Andrew July 7, 2001 (2001-07-07) (age 8)
14 Justin Samuel November 15, 2002 (2002-11-15) (age 7)
15 Jackson Levi May 23, 2004 (2004-05-23) (age 5) Birth via C-section, featured in a Discovery Health special
16 Johannah Faith October 11, 2005 (2005-10-11) (age 4) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
17 Jennifer Danielle August 2, 2007 (2007-08-02) (age 2) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
18 Jordyn-Grace Makiya December 18, 2008(2008-12-18) (1 year 4 months) Birth via C-section, featured in a regular season episode
19 Josie Brooklyn December 10, 2009(2009-12-10) (4 months 16 days) Birth via emergency C-section, featured in a TLC special

Rhody...:uhh: :rolleyes:

Kerrie

Apr26-10, 10:47 AM

Kerrie

Apr26-10, 10:52 AM

rhody

Apr26-10, 11:12 AM

I think this situation is of course extremely rare, but it has always struck me as a publicity stunt more than anything.
Kerrie,

Are you saying that from the beginning when they had say 5 children that they (husband and or wife) needed attention, recognition, etc... the dynamics of all of this blow my mind, that they hatched a plan like this ? I consider myself practical, rational (at least most of the time, hehe).

According to their wiki page (take that for what it is worth) they are entirely self sufficient, not in major debt. I hope this is the case. I can't imagine a case of (Octo 8 * 2 + 3) parents !!! If I had to make a pro/con checklist for having this many children, I can't think of so many things on the plus side that would ever in my wildest dreams convince myself that I could pull it off successfully. It is beyond comprehension...

Rhody...

Jimmy Snyder

Apr26-10, 11:25 AM

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

Kerrie

Apr26-10, 11:26 AM

Kerrie,

Are you saying that from the beginning when they had say 5 children that they (husband and or wife) needed attention, recognition, etc... the dynamics of all of this blow my mind, that they hatched a plan like this ? I consider myself practical, rational (at least most of the time, hehe).

According to their wiki page (take that for what it is worth) they are entirely self sufficient, not in major debt. I hope this is the case. I can't imagine a case of (Octo 8 * 2 + 3) parents !!! If I had to make a pro/con checklist for having this many children, I can't think of so many things in the plus side that would ever in my wildest dreams convince myself that I could pull it off successfully. It is beyond comprehension...

Rhody...

I think it is quite obvious they want attention for their large family. Whether it is monetary, or to just show the world they have a loving, close, religious family, I don't know what the motivation for attention is of course.

At this point I can imagine that there are so many children that are old enough to help out that the *overwhelming* feeling for mom and dad has subsided. I have a 13 year old who is wonderful about helping with my 4 year old, which is why I came to this assumption.

Kerrie

Apr26-10, 11:26 AM

Jack21222

Apr26-10, 12:59 PM

Jimmy Snyder

Apr26-10, 01:15 PM

And this is bad because...?
I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

pallidin

Apr26-10, 01:28 PM

For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move it with you.

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

Jimmy Snyder

Apr26-10, 01:34 PM

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!
That should be "in with you". I edited my post accordingly.

pallidin

Apr26-10, 01:57 PM

Right, I read it that way(move in with you). I'm used to spelling/grammar/context mistakes from others and myself.

rootX

Apr27-10, 08:49 PM

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

1) Would you prefer brilliant immigrants or dumb locals? Quality matters as much as quantity.
2) Can people raise kids better if they can spend more time on the kid? If yes, less is better than more.
3)
because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.
Educated/rich families tend to have less kids .. Are you saying that poor families should prefer more children so that can balance with less children in educated/rich families.

DaveC426913

Apr27-10, 10:11 PM

People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything.
Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms.
Why?

Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.
And elaborating is bad how?

You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.

Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

leroyjenkens

Apr28-10, 09:16 AM

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

Calm down. Don't get your feathers ruffled until you understand what I'm saying.
My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.
Why?
Because just like my bike analogy, "better" needs to be elaborated on. If I said my bike is better and you asked for me to elaborate how it's better, "is the lack of understanding considered my inability? Or yours?"
By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.
And elaborating is bad how?
When did I imply elaborating was bad? That's the exact opposite of what I said. My entire post was advocating more elaboration.

You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.
I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?
Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?
Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?
Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.
Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

DaveC426913

Apr28-10, 09:48 PM

My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.
Not really, no.

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

I refer you back to this:
... children are a miracle and a blessing and ... wonderful and glorious...
This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

But that's not saying anything.
This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?
Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?
Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

leroyjenkens

Apr29-10, 08:50 AM

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.
Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.
We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.
I could just as easily say it's a blessing NOT to have kids.
This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.
Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?
This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.
It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable. The problem doesn't lie with my nonsensical answer, it lies with your expectation of an answer that at least includes numbers.
If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.
First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

But regardless of that, if we're trying to resolve whose bike is better in a legitimate discussion, "I prefer mine" doesn't automatically win. There has to be a reason why I prefer mine, it's not ineffable. Just because it's my preference doesn't exclude it from needing elaboration, IF you're in a debate about it. That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.
You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.
I was asking. I was asking for further elaboration. If you want to call that dismissing the claim as inadequate, then I guess that's what I did. If I ask for elaboration, then it obviously follows that the claim must be inadequate for me to need elaboration.
Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.
Theists say the same thing about religion yet that topic is debated frequently.
Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.
So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

And "more" is a quantity.

Huckleberry

Apr29-10, 11:05 AM

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions seperate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

MarCn

Apr29-10, 11:34 AM

I think because not all people can give more time for them.

Kerrie

Apr29-10, 01:34 PM

DaveC426913

Apr29-10, 03:40 PM

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.
They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

IF you're in a debate about it.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.
The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

One does not debate with statements; one debates with opponents.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?
No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

And "more" is a quantity.
And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

leroyjenkens

Apr29-10, 05:08 PM

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.
I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.
They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.
I'm setting up a target that I've seen before and shooting it down. What's the problem? I never claimed anyone here had that position, so it's not a straw man.
Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.
That's not the point. You were defending the phantom when you came in here, and now you're just saying that my debate with the phantom doesn't matter.
This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.
So you're saying that a creationist wouldn't describe evolution accurately? Then that means you're saying it's not accurate when I say people call children blessings. Is that what you're saying?
See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.
I didn't attribute that argument to anyone here, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Unless you think that's what I did, which I didn't.
No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.
And they understand that it means what? Could you explain what they mean? And remember that repeating the word itself isn't an explanation as to the meaning of the word.
Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.
Given the context of a debate, you would need to explain why your preference is the way it is. Otherwise there's nothing to debate.
Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.
They may be. I never said they weren't, and since I made them up, I can say that they're in a debate.
The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.
I'm using them as an example of what's acceptable in a debate and what's not. Their explanation isn't acceptable. I don't see a problem with doing that.
No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.
Why isn't it quantifiable?
And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.
It's not an exact number, just like "few". But they can both be used to indicate a quantity.

Huckleberry

Apr29-10, 10:36 PM

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.
That is a far cry from...
I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way.

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

DaveC426913

Apr29-10, 10:57 PM

Why isn't it quantifiable?

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

GeorginaS

Apr29-10, 11:50 PM

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do?

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

TMFKAN64

Apr30-10, 01:05 AM

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

Huckleberry

Apr30-10, 02:11 AM

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.
I have lived with a parent like that. Have you?

I never implied that parents "love" being parents or that there is a universal standard for testing whether parents regret having children or not. I implied that the overwhelming majority of parents love their children, and that basing an opinion the testimony of parents is better than basing it on an infallible, unsubstantiated and ultimately inconsequential opinion.

Where does the idea that because some parents are unhappy that they regret having children come from? Raising children isn't easy, and some people are dreadfully unprepared for the task. Just because circumstances are difficult and some parents don't cope well doesn't mean they regret their children, and just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

Jack21222

Apr30-10, 05:58 AM

just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

leroyjenkens

Apr30-10, 08:36 AM

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.
That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.
It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.
This would be new territory. Like if I was the first one to put numbers to volumes of liquids. If I just gave it a number; 42, it means nothing.
How do they assign numbers to something like your credibility? If it's never been done before, someone could say you can't assign a number to someone's credibility. But they did. It's called your credit score. And just like credit score, I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.
Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.
I could quantify the chemical effects, which is what it is. I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.

Huckleberry

Apr30-10, 09:03 AM

Can you explain this to me slowly? Because apparently I'm an idiot and can't comprehend this. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying that statement makes no sense at all to me the way it's currently phrased.

I remember my father screaming and shaking my infant brother until my brother stopped crying. Then he would throw my brother in the crib. My brother couldn't even speak yet, but he learned exactly when to stop crying before he would be thrashed. I assume my father thought the problem was solved with no further damage done.

I remember, many years later after I had left home, my brother told me how our father punched our mother in the face. She is schitzophrenic and supposedly he had to stop her from hurting herself or burning down the house.

I remember visiting home and going down to the basement to smoke and I heard a noise from a sealed 5 gallon bucket. There was a live squirrel in there suffocating. My father said he thought it was already dead, and he kills the squirrels because they dump the birdseed on the ground.

I also remember going out riding bikes with my sister and father. I went racing down a hill and around a corner and crashed into my sister. We both fell to the pavement hard. Our father was running between us frantically trying to see if we were alright. He wasn't pretending concern.

I remember we would go camping and I'd jump off his shoulders when we were swimming. We'd go fishing for bass, and the two of us would go canoeing on the lake for hours. He was enjoying himself as much as I was.

I remember when I left home because I couldn't stand the arguments and the anger, and watching my 10 year old brother and my father both crying on the steps as I drove away. They were real tears. He still calls me regularly and always tells me I should call my mother more often, but it is always him who I end up talking to. He has regrets he can't admit to himself, but I highly doubt that I or my siblings are one of them.

It's easy to view an abuser as a despicable, vile pig, incapable of love. I think that's rarely the truth, that a person is entirely one thing or another. My father is not a kind man by any estimation, but he's not completely devoid of kindness either. He is sometimes compelled beyond reason to create the illusion of self-control and self-esteem by controlling his environment and the people in it. To this day he still seems unaware of what he has done, but I don't doubt that he loves his children as best as he is able. For the moments when he was a genuine father I love him too.

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

Huckleberry

Apr30-10, 09:10 AM

That implies they had the children on accident. If they wish they waited to have children, that implies the child wasn't an accident and they regret having the child.
Now, the way I say it sounds bad, but that's basically all it is. It's taboo to say you regret having your child, so people get around saying that by saying something else, which basically says the same thing.

I'm assuming you mean that the child was an accident, and saying it wasn't is an error.

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children. I know that I won't convince you otherwise, so I'm just going to go scribble the word serendipity out of my dictionary.

leroyjenkens

Apr30-10, 10:13 AM

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that all parents who have unplanned pregnancies regret having their children.
I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.

Jack21222

Apr30-10, 11:07 AM

I hope that at least makes my opinion of the matter understandable.

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.

DaveC426913

Apr30-10, 12:04 PM

This would be new territory. ...I could invent a new way of quantifying someone's worth.
Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.

I don't believe there's anything spiritual about it.
That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.

DaveC426913

Apr30-10, 12:17 PM

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here.
No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".

Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

Kerrie

Apr30-10, 12:24 PM

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

I have heard this regret from my own mother too-she had just me in her youthful energetic life. At age 40, she had my half brother who has Downs Syndrome as well as Autism. While this is an incredible responsibility, she does not regret the decision to raise him because it is humanistic to raise, care, and love another.

It is also humanistic to be afraid of or repulsed by the responsibilities to raise a child. To those who do fear this, I don't think any less of them because they are aware of what sacrifice it takes to raise a child who has the morals and decision making skills to be a productive member of society. At the same time, I don't need others questioning my decision to raise a child with my dedication and commitment to their well being in society-for one day they will be caretakers of those who question their existence. :smile:

Huckleberry

Apr30-10, 01:34 PM

None of your examples, except possibly the first one, are instances of child abuse. The original statement was about "abuse and neglect" of children. From the examples you provided, you were neither abused nor neglected as a child.

My belief is that a bona fide child abuser does not love his or her child. My parents, and I'm sure almost everybody's parents, have made stupid parenting mistakes from time to time. That's not what we're talking about here. Neglected, no, but it sure felt like abuse much of the time. A pattern of violent behaviour isn't a parenting mistake, and having to occassionally suffer it for no reason at all and constantly live under the threat of it is a kind of abuse. Whether that is bona-fide or not I'll leave to you. Though I'm sure some abusers do suffer from a form of antisocial personality disorder that renders them incapable of empathy, my point was to show that not all abusers (children,women,animals) have that extreme limitation. If only the most psychopathic forms of abuse are considered bona-fide, then maybe you are right, but rarely is the world so black and white.

I didn't say all do. But I was responding to someone who said none do. Some definitely do.
I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different. It doesn't help your argument.

edit - I like this scene from Good Will Hunting about regret.
Warning: the clip is rife with bad language!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP8LWj_1LBk

leroyjenkens

Apr30-10, 01:43 PM

Thank you. Twice you have agreed that there currently is no quantifiable way to measure these things.
Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.
That is not your call. It is entirely a matter of the parents feeling that they are spiritually-enhanced by their children.
Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.
I suppose that is true, but I don't think it follows that because a parent says one thing they necessarily mean something different.
I'm saying they're not different. I'm saying they're the same thing.

DaveC426913

Apr30-10, 02:04 PM

Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist.
The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.

Till then, there's nothing to debate. These things are not quantifiable.

I wonder, maybe you think what I'm saying is that they can never be quantifable, even in principle. I am not saying that.

Just because they feel that way, doesn't mean it's actually happening. Some may feel that god answers their prayers, but just because that's the way they feel, doesn't mean that he actually does.
God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.

Jack21222

Apr30-10, 02:27 PM

No. Your viewpoint is far too black and white.

Just because a parent regrets what they did to their child, does not mean it was not abusive.

Examples:
- a parent might use excessive corporal punishment, such as using a strap or belt, for a particularly bad transgression. The parent may feel this is necessary, may even dislike it, but that does not mean they are not being abusive. Nor does it mean they don't love them (flawed as it may be).
- a parent may lash out at a child with a slap in anger or weakness (say, they were lacking sleep or had been drinking). It is abuse, but it does not mean they don't love their child (again, no argiung that these people need help to deal with their issues).

Nor are these simply "mistakes". This behaviour may be institutionalized, meaning, within the family, it is considered "normal".

Whether you disagree the above (or think it should be stopped or think the authorities should step in) is irrelevent; it is de facto. It is what it is. Some parents do love and abuse their children.

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused." We're using different definitions of the word.

leroyjenkens

Apr30-10, 03:27 PM

The proof will have to be in the pudding.

I am claiming we cannot quantify personal worth or the benefits of children. As it stands, that is the way it is.

If you think it's possible. Theoretically. Some day in the future. If someone takes it on. And they succeed.

Well, one can say the same thing about teleporting to other planets. But the proof will be in the pudding.
Teleporting to other planets isn't a comparable analogy. We haven't done anything close to that yet, yet we've done something close to putting human worth into numbers. For that to be a comparable analogy, you would have to accept that putting human worth into numbers is as far off as teleporting people to other planets.
Not only can we not do anything like that, we don't even know if it will ever be possible.
On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.
God has nothing to do with it. You have a very narrow definition of spirituality. Spirituality does not necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural.

If it would help you, substitute the following words: identity, moral compass, emotional well-being, compassion, love of thy neighbour, philanthropy, philosophy, etc.
Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?
Credibility has been assigned a numerical quantity, proving that similar ideas can be quantified. Your argument is that because they haven't, no one knows if they could be.

DaveC426913

Apr30-10, 06:24 PM

On the other hand, I could create a system right now for assigning numbers to human worth.
By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?

You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.

And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.

Why are any of those intrinsically incapable of being quantified?

I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.

If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?

Zantra

Apr30-10, 11:29 PM

It's always amusing to hear people who are single comment on how becoming a parent is a mistake. Children are like ciggarrettes. If you haven't had one, you just don't get it. It's like a smoker being told by non-smokers how easy it is to quit smoking.

Ego

Having chidlren is all about ego. We are genetically predisposed to love our children through 10,000 years of evolution biased towards procreation. We are taught to always love ourselves, and children, by association, are an extension of ourselves. So to reject them is to reject ourselves. To hate them is to hate ourselves. Your child is a direct reflection of you, and in most cases, thier development and growth is a direct reflections of your efforts (or lack thereof). The individual they will one day become is a direct result of your influence, and most parents come to realize this.

That said, not everyone should be a parent. Some people have children by mistake, and not every human being has the necessary nuturing skills, or capability of being a parent. Some people are just irresponsible and incapable of caring about someone more than they care about themselves. When those kinds of people have children, the result is bad parenting.

You should only have as many children as you can sustain without significantly reducing your lifestyle. When you do that you are affecting your whole family, not just yourselves. You have made a decision that having a 3rd child is more important than your first 2 children attending a private school, or being able to attend an ivy league school one day (insert your own ideals here). My point being that having more children than you can realistically support (19 children? really?) is a mistake that your whole family has to live with.

Philosophy of Parenting

First rule: there are not absolutes, correct?

I see all these examples of parents who are resentful, disciplinarian, abusive, irresponsible, etc. The bottom line is that AGAIN, not everyone should be a parent. if 99.999 % of parents are good parents who do a socially acceptable job parenting, I call that a statistical certainty, but we never deal in absolutes.

Parenting is a series of snapshots in time. Anger, joy, amusement, rage, love, resentment,contempt, stoicism, disgust, chaos.. you will experience all of those emotions within the first year of having a child. Once you do, you understand what it is to be a parent, and that while it may not be black and white, the pros DO outweigh the cons. YOu'll also realize that a parent regretting thier choice one day may have a different outlook the next.

And love is not quantifiable. Especially the love for a child. When you put more value on your child's life than your own, how do you quantify a negative number? Maybe we start asking how many other innocent children you would kill to save your own child's life?

DaveC426913

May1-10, 08:36 AM

I have been slapped for inadequate reasons on several occasions as a child, however, I do not feel that I was "abused."
I concur. That's not abuse.

But there is a wide grey area between that and parents who, say, deliberately lock their children in the basement for years, or burn them with cigarettes. I think that's the kind of thing you're thinking of.

Your black and white definition runs the risk of ignoring all the children who fall in that grey area.

leroyjenkens

May1-10, 09:46 AM

By the same argument I could assign a colour to human worth. But how does one judge if it has any meaning?
You decide how it's judged. Numbers are used to make a quantification for something and you're able to read it as a scale from worst to best. You could use colors as well, but you'd have to define the meaning and make a legend people could refer to. If you create the system, you make all the rules.
You claiming you could invent a system for assigning a number to human worth is an empty claim.
I don't see why you have trouble believing I could do it. You could do it. A child could do it. It's as difficult as assigning numbers to every good and bad thing a person does, add them up, and you have a credit score for human worth.
And, getting back to the initial argument, let's remember why we're talking about this. You are effectively criticizing parents for describing their joy of having children without giving quantitative values. Yet there is no such system. You are criticzing them for not using something that does not exist.
Are these people in a debate about it or are they just at a dinner party and casually talking? I wouldn't ask them to invent a system that doesn't exist, I'd just need elaboration on pros they want to list in contrast to the cons, if they list pros like "a blessing" or "a miracle".
But I've already said that and you've responded by saying they don't need to elaborate on that because they're not in a debate. I'm saying that it needs elaboration if they're in a debate about it. I didn't say anyone here said that, I just used those fictional people as an example of what isn't acceptable in a debate.
Do I decide what is acceptable in a debate? No, but I think I have a good understanding of what should be allowed in a debate.
If you're listing pros and cons and you're allowed to list "a blessing" or "a miracle" as pros, then where does it end? I could just as easily make up words to use as cons; "an aloe", "a glove", "a fruit explosion". Those "cons" that I listed don't make any sense until elaborated on.
I didn't say anything about that. I simply said you don't know what spirituality usually means.
I presume that would vary from person to person. But as far as I know, spirituality usually refers to the supernatural, since the root word "spirit" is usually a supernatural concept.
If you have a specious concept of spirituality, who's to say you don't have a specious concept of the joys of parenthood?
As far as I know, we haven't concluded I do in fact have a specious concept of spirituality. Maybe you're the one who does.
I know there are joys of parenthood. I was just arguing that I think the sorrows offset the joys. It may not be true and it could vary from person to person, so I don't think either of us is necessarily wrong.

Evo

May1-10, 10:31 AM

You should only have as many children as you can sustain without significantly reducing your lifestyle. When you do that you are affecting your whole family, not just yourselves. You have made a decision that having a 3rd child is more important than your first 2 children attending a private school, or being able to attend an ivy league school one day (insert your own ideals here). My point being that having more children than you can realistically support (19 children? really?) is a mistake that your whole family has to live with.Not to mention that in very large families, the older children are often delegated to take over the care and parenting of their younger siblings, stripping them of their chance to be children themselves.

rewebster

May1-10, 11:05 AM

I've known women that enjoy being pregnant to women that have a fear of it (and to intimacy) ---and that's just the woman's side.

Zantra

May1-10, 04:29 PM

I concur. That's not abuse.

But there is a wide grey area between that and parents who, say, deliberately lock their children in the basement for years, or burn them with cigarettes. I think that's the kind of thing you're thinking of.

Your black and white definition runs the risk of ignoring all the children who fall in that grey area.

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And thiat creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgement. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to thier parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

DaveC426913

May1-10, 06:00 PM

I don't see why you have trouble believing I could do it. You could do it. A child could do it. It's as difficult as assigning numbers to every good and bad thing a person does, add them up, and you have a credit score for human worth.

I could not do it. You could not do it. A child could not do it. None of us could even do it for our own lives, let alone someone elses.

That being said, you are experiencing tunnel vision. You are belabouring a tangential point and have lost track of the thread topic.

It was your claim that the parents are saying nothing about how great it is to have children because they are not quantifying it. Yet there exists no system for quantifying it.

Let's get back on track: provide a method by which parents can succeed at what you require (the quantification of the improvement of their lives).

leroyjenkens

May2-10, 11:09 AM

I could not do it. You could not do it. A child could not do it. None of us could even do it for our own lives, let alone someone elses.
Why? I've explained how it could easily be done, but you haven't explained why you think it's impossible.
That being said, you are experiencing tunnel vision. You are belabouring a tangential point and have lost track of the thread topic.
That's because you keep asking me about it.
It was your claim that the parents are saying nothing about how great it is to have children because they are not quantifying it. Yet there exists no system for quantifying it.
Not for quantifying "blessing" and "miracle". But on a list of pros and cons, what you list can be quantified, if what you list has an explicit meaning. If this wasn't true, a list of pros and cons is always meaningless, since you can't quantify which one is greater.
Let's get back on track: provide a method by which parents can succeed at what you require (the quantification of the improvement of their lives).
Not using vague terms like "blessing" and "miracle", which is all that I required from the beginning. It's not a lot to ask that someone elaborate on what they consider a plus for having a child.

DaveC426913

May2-10, 08:05 PM

Why? I've explained how it could easily be done, but you haven't explained why you think it's impossible.
You would have to be omniscient and/or omnipresent. It is not practically possible.

It's not a lot to ask that someone elaborate on what they consider a plus for having a child.
And did you ask?

cuz I still think you're confusing a lack of communication with a lack of a valid argument.

DaveC426913

May2-10, 09:08 PM

If one can have the Ability to reproduce a child, then he/she must assure his life to be good. its not us or anyone else would share or tolaerate the sufferings
That means also I dn't favor policies over election of those who are married or unmarried for any partiular purposes or advantadges.
You know what, I am a jenitor in a hospital- birth delivering department now, I see it all every single day. Just every 5-10 minutes all day and night there will be a baby to be born. There are cases of abortion by young, very young couple. They cry on bed in pain to get rid of the baby but I wonder if they cry like that when they are on bed with their boyfriends.
in the US, scenes of pregnant teens coming to schools are normal,but to all/most of nations in Asian, it is clearly the morality is seriously deteriorating, degraded. To me its disgusting and TOOO TOOOO TOOOOO stupid, i certainly have no respect at all for them and their parents

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce free citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

While our world may not be perfect, do you have an alternative?

Char. Limit

May3-10, 06:12 AM

leroyjenkens

May3-10, 09:42 AM

You would have to be omniscient and/or omnipresent. It is not practically possible.
It would be based on how much they help and hurt society and all of that is pretty well documented.
And did you ask?

cuz I still think you're confusing a lack of communication with a lack of a valid argument.
Yes, I did. Someone here said "best" for a decision to have children, then I asked for elaboration and gave examples of what people normally say in reference to having children that also needs to be elaborated on.
For another example, people say children bring joy. Joy in what way? You just get a feeling of inexplicable joy from the child being in proximity to you? Children emit joy particles that bind to neurotransmitters in your brain and cause joy?
Who exactly would you appoint to enforce free citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?
There's lots of "rights" that we should have, but we don't. We should be allowed to walk around naked, but we can't. What do you define as a human right? A right bestowed by a higher power? The only "rights" we have are the rights that society allows us to have.

DaveC426913

May3-10, 08:18 PM

It would be based on how much they help and hurt society and all of that is pretty well documented..
Please quantify "help". Please quantify "hurt".

Yes, I did. Someone here said "best" for a decision to have children,
No, did you ask these parents that you are holding up as your examples. You listed a scenario about people who say these things, and dismiss their claims because it is not quantifiable enough for you. Did you check that they had answers before you dismissed them?

The only "rights" we have are the rights that society allows us to have.And society allows us the right to bear children, whether others think we're up to the task or not.

Lifesimbol makes a classic mistake of thinking the world should magically work the way he thinks it should, but does not consider what it would mean to actually implement, to wit: passing laws that disqualify certain couples from having children based on their fitness.

IcedEcliptic

May3-10, 09:04 PM

Those laws seem to be harmful when instituted as well, if China is a fair example. People will fight for few things as they will for food, sex, shelter, and procreation. We will find a technological solution or nature will sort us out, forgone conclusion I think.

GeorginaS

May3-10, 11:01 PM

Who exactly would you appoint to enforce [snip] citizens not being allowed to have children? It is a basic human right. Who can take that away?

The Chinese government?

:tongue:

IcedEcliptic

May3-10, 11:02 PM

The Chinese government?

:tongue:

A very strong government, but they don't succeed even then.

GeorginaS

May3-10, 11:04 PM

A very strong government, but they don't succeed even then.

Well Dave didn't specify that they had to succeed.

DaveC426913

May3-10, 11:08 PM

The Chinese government?

:tongue:

Yeah. But note: they are not disallowing citizens to have children. They are merely imposing an upper limit.

And they are not pointing their finger at specific people and judging them unfit to be parents (which is what LifeSimbol's idea was heading toward); they are unilaterally imposing the limit for good of the country.

Very different ball of worms.

GeorginaS

May3-10, 11:09 PM

Yeah. But note: they are not pointing their finger at specific people and judging them unfit to be parents (which is what LifeSimbol's idea was heading toward); they are unilaterally imposing a rule (nay not even a hard rule, merely an upper limit) for the sake of the greater good of their people.

Very different ball of worms.

Oh sure, be all wormy. Fine, I'll stay out it, then.

IcedEcliptic

May3-10, 11:13 PM

Yeah. But note: they are not disallowing citizens to have children. They are merely imposing an upper limit.

And they are not pointing their finger at specific people and judging them unfit to be parents (which is what LifeSimbol's idea was heading toward); they are unilaterally imposing the limit for good of the country.

Very different ball of worms.

Still their policy is not working, and is causing a gender imbalance from cultural stresses as well. Larry Niven believed in a lottery in some of his books, but in real life what will it take for people to agree to such strictures? I think we will see war and disease before sudden enlightenment, or successful control of birth rates by a centralized government.

Zantra

May4-10, 02:00 AM

I think that's the whole point. There's this grey area that most parents live in, and society doesen't know how to handle it, so they create this rigid line that says on one side you're properly disciplining your child, and on the other half you're an abuser and you're going to jail. And that creates an atmosphere of reluctance from the parents afraid to discipline their children, and children who abuse the system by running to the authorities and exaggerating because they are mad at the parents for punishing them, not understanding the implications of tattling. And that creates this generation of kids who leverage an over reaching mandate to misbehave and act out.

At some point the line between abusive and parenting was moved in the conservative direction, and the atmosphere it creates leads to a generation of children who act without fear of reprisal, and who don't understand respect or sound judgment. When I was a kid if I talked to my my parents they way I see some kids these days talk to their parents, I'd have been knocked out cold, no questions asked. As a youth I once swore in front of my mom. After I picked myself up off the ground, I never did it again. There's an acceptable middle ground here, but I don't think we've found it yet.

That's my soapbox for the day

I wouldn't say that this holds true, at least not as much as you seem to say it does. I and many of the people I know (the generation of children who "don't understand respect or sound judgment") still respect our parents, and I've sworn in front of them less than you have. This also holds true for many of the people I know. Some people hear children not calling their father "sir" and assume that the child is disrespectful. Now, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but it is still a bad idea to just assume disrespect. It's also a bad idea to generalize about the generation that is going to come into power soon.

Especially me, because I'm planning to do a Napoleon. Just as a hobby. :rofl:

As I mentioned earlier there are no absolutes, and I'm not saying that every single child is rude disrespectful and evil. I'm saying when you see a pattern you have to look at it as such.

SOME parents spoil thier children unecessarily in an effort to buy thier children's love and respect. They try to be thier "friend" when what the child needs is a mom and a dad. You cannot be both all the time.

And for the record I've never made my child call me "SIR" nor would I ever expect her to. However she's never sworn in front of me, and she knows what would happen if she did. She also knows "please", "thank you" and humility. These are some traits that everyone should know and learn, and most people feel the same way.

I see lots of kids screaming at thier parents, swearing at them, arguing, calling them names. even hitting them. And it's not the child's fault. It's always the parent.

Anyways, these are all generalizations but the bottom line is that discipline to some degree is necessary as a teaching method. IMHO, Spanking is a valuable method for helping a child understand right from wrong, when done appropriately in a non-abusive manner. However, some parents go far beyond a normal spanking which leads to overprotective abuse laws that overcompensate for bad parenting.

Making it illegal to discipline your children past a certain point results in dimishing returns which end up causing more problems then they solve. More involvement by CPS and other agencies is the way to combat actual child abuse.

IcedEcliptic

May4-10, 08:23 AM

As I mentioned earlier there are no absolutes, and I'm not saying that every single child is rude disrespectful and evil. I'm saying when you see a pattern you have to look at it as such.

SOME parents spoil thier children unecessarily in an effort to buy thier children's love and respect. They try to be thier "friend" when what the child needs is a mom and a dad. You cannot be both all the time.

And for the record I've never made my child call me "SIR" nor would I ever expect her to. However she's never sworn in front of me, and she knows what would happen if she did. She also knows "please", "thank you" and humility. These are some traits that everyone should know and learn, and most people feel the same way.

I see lots of kids screaming at thier parents, swearing at them, arguing, calling them names. even hitting them. And it's not the child's fault. It's always the parent.

Anyways, these are all generalizations but the bottom line is that discipline to some degree is necessary as a teaching method. IMHO, Spanking is a valuable method for helping a child understand right from wrong, when done appropriately in a non-abusive manner. However, some parents go far beyond a normal spanking which leads to overprotective abuse laws that overcompensate for bad parenting.

Making it illegal to discipline your children past a certain point results in dimishing returns which end up causing more problems then they solve. More involvement by CPS and other agencies is the way to combat actual child abuse.

The most recent study of spanking that is peer reviewed which I have read concludes that even mild spanking of toddlers leads to negative outcome. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900

This is not surprising, that a child learns the lesson that a parent cannot discipline without striking their child. Bad parenting is more often neglect than spoiling, and why should parents be allowed to hit their children when Independent research continually shows it is harmful in the long run? You ignore temperament, and generalize, which is spanking in a nutshell, yes?

leroyjenkens

May4-10, 09:39 AM

Please quantify "help". Please quantify "hurt".
For example, something like the holocaust would hurt more than robbing an old lady. It would warrant a higher numerical value if you were to put it in numbers so it can be ranked.
No, did you ask these parents that you are holding up as your examples. You listed a scenario about people who say these things, and dismiss their claims because it is not quantifiable enough for you. Did you check that they had answers before you dismissed them?
Unless we were debating it, I would just accept "a blessing" as one of the best things to ever happen to this person. In a debate, I would need elaboration. They're not in the debate, so I just use them as an example of some things people say in normal speech that shouldn't be allowed in a debate.

Zantra

May4-10, 10:24 AM

The most recent study of spanking that is peer reviewed which I have read concludes that even mild spanking of toddlers leads to negative outcome. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900

This is not surprising, that a child learns the lesson that a parent cannot discipline without striking their child. Bad parenting is more often neglect than spoiling, and why should parents be allowed to hit their children when Independent research continually shows it is harmful in the long run? You ignore temperament, and generalize, which is spanking in a nutshell, yes?

A child at the ages of 2-5 only understands black and white. They don't yet posess the reasoning capacity to comprehend why their behaviors are good or bad. Spanking is a tool that when used properly, in limited amounts, services as a course correction when a child gets off course. Unfortunately it's often not used that way.

as many parents can attest, few responses bring about the immediate interruption of a full-blown tantrum like a swift whack to the bottom

That's from your article. And here's an article refuting yours:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.

I do agree that using spanking as a tool has a limited effectiveness and should be used sparingly, but how do you communicate to a toddler why their behavior is wrong? They only understand vaguage positive and negatives for the most part. You cannot sit a 2 year old down and have a conversation with them. at least not one that has words bigger than one syllable :)

IcedEcliptic

May4-10, 10:59 AM

A child at the ages of 2-5 only understands black and white. They don't yet posess the reasoning capacity to comprehend why their behaviors are good or bad. Spanking is a tool that when used properly, in limited amounts, services as a course correction when a child gets off course. Unfortunately it's often not used that way.

That's from your article. And here's an article refuting yours:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

I do agree that using spanking as a tool has a limited effectiveness and should be used sparingly, but how do you communicate to a toddler why their behavior is wrong? They only understand vaguage positive and negatives for the most part. You cannot sit a 2 year old down and have a conversation with them. at least not one that has words bigger than one syllable :)

Yes, children lack the ability to reflect on their actions, so they simply learn by what you do. Your article is just that, an article. I gave you an article linking to a recent peer reviewed study by an Independent source. You have refuted nothing. For the rest, your understanding of the cognition of children is simplistic, but easy to correct. Research this topic beyond opinion pieces, and you won't find a single clear answer, but the bulk of research indicates that children fare better with other forms of discipline. Spanking reflects badly on the parent, who after all, can think in more than black and white. There is something between a peaceful chat, and hitting, it just takes more effort and is not cathartic.

leroyjenkens

May4-10, 11:05 AM

Yes, children lack the ability to reflect on their actions, so they simply learn by what you do. Your article is just that, an article. I gave you an article linking to a recent peer reviewed study by an Independent source. You have refuted nothing. For the rest, your understanding of the cognition of children is simplistic, but easy to correct. Research this topic beyond opinion pieces, and you won't find a single clear answer, but the bulk of research indicates that children fare better with other forms of discipline. Spanking reflects badly on the parent, who after all, can think in more than black and white. There is something between a peaceful chat, and hitting, it just takes more effort and is not cathartic.

I don't see how you can raise a child without spanking. They seem to only respond to pain.

IcedEcliptic

May4-10, 11:57 AM

I don't see how you can raise a child without spanking. They seem to only respond to pain.

Of all my childhood friends, only two were spanked. One was always impossible, and his parents were out of control. He's in jail, but to be fair he would have been in any case I think. The other is completely normal by any standard. For myself and siblings, and others, we were never struck in any way, but our parents stuck to their punishments. Children respond to limits, positive and negative reinforcement, and the emotional state of the parent. Hell man, I've trained a lot of dogs in my time, and positive reinforcement almost always works best, and faster. You think a dog understands more than a 2-5 year old kid?

Kerrie

May4-10, 12:07 PM

I don't see how you can raise a child without spanking. They seem to only respond to pain.
Not all children are alike in their response to punishment. Some children laugh at a spanking, but will be shocked into behaving when they are separated from the rest of the family for a time out.

leroyjenkens

May4-10, 12:09 PM

Children respond to limits, positive and negative reinforcement, and the emotional state of the parent.
Depends on the child. Some just don't respond to anything but pain.
You think a dog understands more than a 2-5 year old kid?
No, they're just different than human children. Children will sometimes deliberately misbehave just to get a response, or to push you as far as they can get away with. Dogs won't do that. Dogs and children don't think alike.
Not all children are alike in their response to punishment. Some children laugh at a spanking, but will be shocked into behaving when they are separated from the rest of the family for a time out.
They may laugh at a spanking that, for whatever reason, didn't hurt. I've never seen a child laugh at pain.
And time outs are a nice hypothetical idea, but how do you keep them there? Strap them down? They're not motivated by anything to remain in the time out spot.

George Jones

May4-10, 12:20 PM

A child at the ages of 2-5 only understands black and white.

My daughter is three years, eight moths old, and, for many months, she has understood why many of her actions are right and wrong. This doesn't always stop her from doing something bad, but when she does something bad, she understands that she has done something bad, and why it is bad. This, of course, means that is always asking for explanations from us. Lately, I have played the following "game" with her.

George: "When you get big like Mama and me, you might have your own little kid."

Pareesa: "Yes."

George: "What would you do if your kid does what you just did?"

She usually doesn't have an answer, but I can see that she thinks about it, and that she understands the conversation.

IcedEcliptic

May4-10, 12:37 PM

My daughter is three years, eight moths old, and, for many months, she has understood why many of her actions are right and wrong. This doesn't always stop her from doing something bad, but when she does something bad, she understands that she has done something bad, and why it is bad. This, of course, means that is always asking for explanations from us. Lately, I have played the following "game" with her.

George: "When you get big like Mama and me, you might have your own little kid."

Pareesa: "Yes."

George: "What would you do if your kid does what you just did?"

She usually doesn't have an answer, but I can see that she thinks about it, and that she understands the conversation.

A voice of reason ,thanks to god.

Evo

May4-10, 12:50 PM

George Jones

May4-10, 01:14 PM

My oldest daughter at three knew what she was not allowed to do and she knew the punishment. For example like drawing life size murals on the walls. When she finished, she would come to me for her punishment. She decided that expressing herself artistically was worth the punishment. Her constant drawing on anything she could find was the only thing she ever did "wrong"

My daughter does lots of "wrong" things knowing full well that she may later have to deal with the consequences. My daughter is very willful; I already feel sorry for her poor husband (if she marries).

Late last Saturday afternoon, we were sitting on some rocks at the uptown harbour discussing what to do.

George: "We can either continue walking along Harbour Passage, or we can get in the car and go home."

Pareesa, starting to cry: "No, there are three!"

Shazia: "Three what?!"

George: "Three things that we can do. She wants to go to Saints' Rest Beach."

Pareesa: "Yes!"

Even though Pareesa understood my explaination that we didn't have time to go to Saints' Rest Beach and play before supper, Pareesa was very, very upset.

Evo

May4-10, 03:19 PM

My daughter does lots of "wrong" things knowing full well that she may later have to deal with the consequences. My daughter is very willful; I already feel sorry for her poor husband (if she marries).

Late last Saturday afternoon, we were sitting on some rocks at the uptown harbour discussing what to do.

George: "We can either continue walking along Harbour Passage, or we can get in the car and go home."

Pareesa, starting to cry: "No, there are three!"

Shazia: "Three what?!"

George: "Three things that we can do. She wants to go to Saints' Rest Beach."

Pareesa: "Yes!"

Even though Pareesa understood my explaination that we didn't have time to go to Saints' Rest Beach and play before supper, Pareesa was very, very upset.Yep, she's going to be handful. My older daughter never got into alcohol or drugs, she didn't rebel as a teen. But she has always had a very strong personality. :bugeye:

DaveC426913

May4-10, 05:34 PM

Depends on the child. Some just don't respond to anything but pain.
This tends to be an indication of a more subtle form of dysfunction in the family.

A family whose control is through negative reinforcement will develop a child that responds to pain. A family that uses positive reinforcement
will more often have a child that does not wish to behave badly, and will more readily return to a positive state with the right encouragement. And this isn't limited to parents; it happens in classrooms as well.

Children learn what they are taught.

No, they're just different than human children. Children will sometimes deliberately misbehave just to get a response, or to push you as far as they can get away with. Dogs won't do that.
What? Dogs do this all the time. Few dog owners will deny that their dog will misbehave to get attention, and will see what tehy can get away with.

They may laugh at a spanking that, for whatever reason, didn't hurt. I've never seen a child laugh at pain.

I have.

IcedEcliptic

May4-10, 06:41 PM

This tends to be an indication of a more subtle form of dysfunction in the family.

A family whose control is through negative reinforcement will develop a child that responds to pain. A family that uses positive reinforcement
will more often have a child that does not wish to behave badly, and will more readily return to a positive state with the right encouragement. And this isn't limited to parents; it happens in classrooms as well.

Children learn what they are taught.

What? Dogs do this all the time. Few dog owners will deny that their dog will misbehave to get attention, and will see what tehy can get away with.

I have.

Pain is the simplest form of communication, and the crudest. There is a reason that even torture rarely relies on pain. The powerful tools are reason, emotion, and manipulation. If you're incapable of that with a child, then parenting may not be a good thing, I think. I think of the so called "Dog Whisperer" Cesar Milan, who despite a funny nickname is very good at his job! He understands that the issues, as DaveC246913 says, are systemic, not local. Consistency in discipline is the biggest factor, and setting limits you CAN enforce, yes?

So too with children, I believe. Send them to bed early, deny them a toy or restrict their activities. They do learn, barring developmental delay, which is also not good with a violent solution. Why does anyone believe that hitting children does anything, but hurt them? You get immediate cessation, but then they are testing the limits of your violence. Hitting them is not connected to their wrongdoing either, so there is only the pairing of stimuli, shorting the cognitive process. You are also striking a helpless person, much like striking a defenseless animal. Both with eventually resent that, and react to their situation by withdrawing, or acting out.

I am struck by Evo and Dave's stories, which show their children IMMEDIATE consequences of their actions, which they can ponder and learn from. "If I do bad thing Y, I will not get good thing Z!" What does hitting teach except: "If I do bad thing Y,I am struck. I will avoid Y," without a real connection of consequences. Life does not allow people to lash out physically, so it is better to realize that misbehavior leads to the loss of what you want, instead of pain. Bad pet owners and bad parents have more in common than either ever care to admit, this is what I believe.

leroyjenkens

May4-10, 06:51 PM

This tends to be an indication of a more subtle form of dysfunction in the family.

A family whose control is through negative reinforcement will develop a child that responds to pain. A family that uses positive reinforcement
will more often have a child that does not wish to behave badly, and will more readily return to a positive state with the right encouragement. And this isn't limited to parents; it happens in classrooms as well.

Children learn what they are taught.
When I was a child, my worst fear was getting a spanking. If I ever got time out, I felt like I got off easy.

What is positive reinforcement? The child does something bad and what would be the "positive reinforcement" as opposed to spanking?

Children learn what they're taught, but they also learn on their own. Like a child doesn't have to be taught to climb on something they're not supposed to climb on. They'll learn themselves and have to be told not to; at which point you've just made something forbidden, which increases their desire to do it.
What? Dogs do this all the time. Few dog owners will deny that their dog will misbehave to get attention, and will see what tehy can get away with.
Never heard of a dog misbehaving to get attention. Dogs chew up stuff, bite people, pee on the carpet and take food off the table for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting attention. Give me an example of something a dog does to get attention.
I have.
So if they laughed at it, how do you know it was truly painful?
At this point it seems like you're just saying the opposite of everything I say.
There is a reason that even torture rarely relies on pain.
It is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?
Why does anyone believe that hitting children does anything, but hurt them? You get immediate cessation, but then they are testing the limits of your violence. Hitting them is not connected to their wrongdoing either, so there is only the pairing of stimuli, shorting the cognitive process.
If you do something and you feel pain for it afterward, you won't do that in the future. Just like if something feels good, you'll try to do whatever you did to get that feeling. That's millions of years of evolution versus your opinion that it does nothing but hurt.
What does hitting teach except: "If I do bad thing Y,I am struck. I will avoid Y," without a real connection of consequences.
Pain is the consequence. Why is your depriving them a toy necessarily teach them any better? I know as a kid myself, pain was a better deterrent than any deprivation I could receive, unless it was something ridiculous.

IcedEcliptic

May4-10, 07:59 PM

When I was a child, my worst fear was getting a spanking. If I ever got time out, I felt like I got off easy.

What is positive reinforcement? The child does something bad and what would be the "positive reinforcement" as opposed to spanking?

Children learn what they're taught, but they also learn on their own. Like a child doesn't have to be taught to climb on something they're not supposed to climb on. They'll learn themselves and have to be told not to; at which point you've just made something forbidden, which increases their desire to do it.

Never heard of a dog misbehaving to get attention. Dogs chew up stuff, bite people, pee on the carpet and take food off the table for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting attention. Give me an example of something a dog does to get attention.

So if they laughed at it, how do you know it was truly painful?
At this point it seems like you're just saying the opposite of everything I say.

It is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?

If you do something and you feel pain for it afterward, you won't do that in the future. Just like if something feels good, you'll try to do whatever you did to get that feeling. That's millions of years of evolution versus your opinion that it does nothing but hurt.

Pain is the consequence. Why is your depriving them a toy necessarily teach them any better? I know as a kid myself, pain was a better deterrent than any deprivation I could receive, unless it was something ridiculous.

Torture usually involves creating fear, uncertainty, and connection with the captor. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption, humiliation, mock execution, and the list goes on. You seem not to understand people very well leroyjenkens, if you believe that pain is some magical motivator. It isn't, it's very ineffective. That you do not know what positive reinforcement is, should say that you have much reading to do on the subject, yes? I do not mean an insult, but positive reinforcement is very basic; dogs are trained so that their "job" is just a game to them. They do the right thing, they get to play with a toy, or petting, or treats. If they do the wrong they, they get nothing.

In the context of torturing, this is still effective. Deprive one of their familiar surroundings, break down their defenses which are usually only geared to fight pain, and then kill them with kindness. If they want a pillow, they have to do something simple, then you lead them further. This is basic for people, and few can resist this given time. Like a horse, you do not leap on it to break it, but you touch it. It, the horse, becomes used to your touch, and then a blanket, and then a saddle, and finally you.

With a child, if they do good things, you give them good things. What child doesn't want a toy, or to play with friends, or watch TV? They get that when they are good, and when they misbehave they lose access to some or all of these things. You say you don't know how to keep a child in a "time out", without hitting them? What child that is not mentally disturbed can resist a grown man or woman to force them to use violence? You cannot do this with other people, not your children, so why do you teach children that violence and pain are these great motivators? I am sorry you were spanked, because the deleterious effects are plain in your responses. I do not mean to be pitying, or disrespectful, I am truly sorry.

DaveC426913

May4-10, 08:05 PM

When I was a child, my worst fear was getting a spanking. If I ever got time out, I felt like I got off easy.

What is positive reinforcement? The child does something bad and what would be the "positive reinforcement" as opposed to spanking?
Wow. Really?

OK. Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

The key to the positive reinforcement in the above case is that Cindy's life already exists in a framework of positive experiences, experiences she likes, so it is in her best interest to cooperate because she likes her life.

A child who has no such positve framework has no reason to cooperate since they know their life is not really going to improve.

Never heard of a dog misbehaving to get attention. Dogs chew up stuff, bite people, pee on the carpet and take food off the table for reasons that have nothing to do with wanting attention.
The fact that they do lots of stuff that's not for attention does nothing to refute the claim that they do sometimes do things for attention. You do realize that, right?

Give me an example of something a dog does to get attention.

Sometimes animals will chew on their owner's things and pee on them when they are unhappy with their owners. Animals often have a well-developed sense of passive aggression.

Don't take my word for it; ask a few dog owners.

So if they laughed at it, how do you know it was truly painful?

Because she likes to tell the story regularly. And I'm married to her.

At this point it seems like you're just saying the opposite of everything I say.

You say a lot of wrong stuff.

Ita is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?
Wow. Really?

Psychological torture? Sleep deprivation? How many examples would you like?

Pain is the consequence. Why is your depriving them a toy necessarily teach them any better? I know as a kid myself, pain was a better deterrent than any deprivation I could receive, unless it was something ridiculous.
OK, well that's really bad. And it would certainly explain the "what is positive reinforcement?" comment earlier.

Evo

May4-10, 08:55 PM

Wow. Really?

OK. Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

The key to the positive reinforcement in the above case is that Cindy's life already exists in a framework of positive experiences, experiences she likes, so it is in her best interest to cooperate because she likes her life.

A child who has no such positve framework has no reason to cooperate since they know their life is not really going to improve.Wow, I would absolutely have to disagree here.

I was spanked for punishment. It was the last thing I wanted. Taking priveleges away from me meant nothing, because I knew it was temporary and my life would go on as normal. But all my mother had to do was take her belt out and we'd straighten up.

Timeouts and removing priveleges had no effect on my children either. But telling them about how disapointed I would be if they were as stupid as their friends made them strive to be better. We often talked about how stupid their friends were and that made them realize they didn't want to be stupid.

DaveC426913

May4-10, 09:07 PM

Wow, I would absolutely have to disagree here.

I was spanked for punishment. It was the last thing I wanted. Taking priveleges away from me meant nothing, because I knew it was temporary and my life would go on as normal. But all my mother had to do was take her belt out and we'd straighten up.

Timeouts and removing priveleges had no effect on my children either. But telling them about how disapointed I would be if they were as stupid as their friends made them strive to be better. We often talked about how stupid their friends were and that made them realize they didn't want to be stupid.

None of this is exclusive of what I said.

I was not talking about removing privileges (negative reinforcement), I was talking about encouraging positve behaviour.

There is a difference between "if you don't stop screaming I'll take way your TV time"
and "Hey, you enjoy our time together, let's do that."

Maybe I didn't make it clear. The first sets up the parent as an adversary forcing choices on the child, whereas second sets up the parent as more of an ally, choosing positive behaviour with the child.

I'm not suggesting this works all the time, I'm suggesting that success will come faster and more frequently when the relationship is founded on positive reinforcement.

Evo

May4-10, 09:17 PM

I'm not suggesting this works all the time, I'm suggesting that success will come faster and more frequently when the relationship is founded on positive reinforcement.You said Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."That's a threat. That's not positive reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement is - You did a great job cleaning the table, how about we go see that movie you want to see tomorrow?

But I see that as a bribe.

I think making your kids understand what behaviour is acceptable to you and makes you happy will work if your kids have a brain. If they don't have a brain, you're in trouble.

DaveC426913

May4-10, 09:50 PM

You said That's a threat. That's not positive reinforcement.

OK, I didn't choose my words well. You're picking up on the wrong parts.

"Cindy Loo, if you don't want to help me with dinner...", (because she's lying on the floor crying), "...then dinner will be late, and we might miss our show."

You see, it can be done in such a way as to cause the child to prefer to and choose to behave. Daily life really is generally positive, and the child really would rather life go back to the way it was before the screaming began.

It's not a threat, because it is based on logical consequences. It is the child's action that is jeopardizing TV time, not the parent's.

And it is not a bribe because the positive reward was already in place as part of the routine.

turbo

May4-10, 10:41 PM

Why do people have so many children? When I was in my mid-twenties and had been married for a few years, a "girl" that had been a clingy pest showed up for a wedding. She had built her own house in a pretty exotic setting, on a shoestring. She was the youngest of 18, whittled down to 14 due to 3 early deaths and a brother killed in Viet-Nam.

French-Catholic families around here tended to have lots of kids not just when they were in farming, but later. It would seem counter-productive not to limit family size when the man was the primary wage earner with a fixed income and having more kids could not improve the economic outlook of the family, but perhaps tradition prevailed.

leroyjenkens

May5-10, 12:45 PM

Torture usually involves creating fear, uncertainty, and connection with the captor. Sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption, humiliation, mock execution, and the list goes on.
What gives you the idea that that's what torture usually involves? I've seen many torture devices in my life and barely any, if any, don't cause pain.
You seem not to understand people very well leroyjenkens, if you believe that pain is some magical motivator. It isn't, it's very ineffective.
You're being dishonest by calling it "magic". You know it's not magic. We've evolved a system where we feel pain to motivate us. If it's so ineffective, why was it evolved and not a different system. Every animal that I know of can feel pain, so there must be a reason for that.
That you do not know what positive reinforcement is, should say that you have much reading to do on the subject, yes? I do not mean an insult, but positive reinforcement is very basic; dogs are trained so that their "job" is just a game to them. They do the right thing, they get to play with a toy, or petting, or treats. If they do the wrong they, they get nothing.
If I knew it was rewarding good behavior, I could have figured it out. I was under the impression that it was a discipline for bad behavior.

With a child, if they do good things, you give them good things. What child doesn't want a toy, or to play with friends, or watch TV? They get that when they are good, and when they misbehave they lose access to some or all of these things. You say you don't know how to keep a child in a "time out", without hitting them? What child that is not mentally disturbed can resist a grown man or woman to force them to use violence? You cannot do this with other people, not your children, so why do you teach children that violence and pain are these great motivators? I am sorry you were spanked, because the deleterious effects are plain in your responses. I do not mean to be pitying, or disrespectful, I am truly sorry.
And those deleterious effects on me were what? It created a person who doesn't know how depriving a child of pleasures can make them behave? I understand how it can possibly motivate some kids, but I also realize on some kids it doesn't work. I'm saying some kids only respond to pain; you're saying all kids will respond to the way you would discipline them. That's arrogant.
Wow. Really?

OK. Positive reinforcment is "Cindy-Loo, do you remember that we were going to watch your favourite show before bedtime? If you don't stop screaming we won't be able to."

The key to the positive reinforcement in the above case is that Cindy's life already exists in a framework of positive experiences, experiences she likes, so it is in her best interest to cooperate because she likes her life.
That doesn't sound like positive reinforcement.
A child who has no such positve framework has no reason to cooperate since they know their life is not really going to improve.
So a child who gets spanked for misbehaving is a child who has nothing positive in their life?
Sometimes animals will chew on their owner's things and pee on them when they are unhappy with their owners. Animals often have a well-developed sense of passive aggression.

Don't take my word for it; ask a few dog owners.

I've had a few dogs and have been around dogs all my life. The problem isn't how the dog thinks, it's how the owner thinks. If a dog chews up a prized possession, the owner suddenly thinks the dog is being spiteful, purposely going after that one item. But they ignore the fact the dog chews up a lot of things and it was a matter of time before he got ahold of something important.
You say a lot of wrong stuff.
This is the kind of mind I'm dealing with. You don't just disagree with what I say; what I say is "wrong".
Wow. Really?

Psychological torture? Sleep deprivation? How many examples would you like?
More examples than I can name of tortures that do involve pain. Since non-pain related torture is apparently way more common.
OK, well that's really bad. And it would certainly explain the "what is positive reinforcement?" comment earlier.
After reading what Evo said, apparently you got it wrong too.

Jimmy Snyder

May5-10, 01:57 PM

I know this thread is not about child-rearing style, but a casual glance at the past few posts reveals that it has spread in that direction.

My father was the gentlest of men and rarely punished at all. I can remember once when I had provoked him to an intolerable degree at a time that he was suffering from stomach ulcers, and therefore in a general bad mood, that he planted his foot rather bruskly, appropriately, and effectively on the soft part of my sitting apperatus. The pain was inconsequential, but the message was clear, I had crossed a serious line. He kept that moment in his memory till he died and often cited it as an error in judgement, although I tried to assure him that it was ultimately beneficial. Rather than punish, my father fried bigger fish. He made me know what was right and what was wrong. Not with the object of seeing me straighten up immediately, but with the long term future in mind. As I matured, I turned into the person he wanted me to be, a tribute to his approach.

IcedEcliptic

May5-10, 02:35 PM

What gives you the idea that that's what torture usually involves? I've seen many torture devices in my life and barely any, if any, don't cause pain.

I have extensive experience working with people who have suffered from modern torture, and this is not arcane or strange knowledge. There is torture to inflict suffering, and there is torture to extract information. The first of course, uses pain, but that is only effective at traumatizing people. The latter, is very much what I, DaveC, and any reasonable source you find will tell you. What torture are you talking about? Branks? Iron Maidens? Skull-Screws and The Rack? These were about slow execution, with the goal of confession in mind, not extracting information.

You're being dishonest by calling it "magic". You know it's not magic. We've evolved a system where we feel pain to motivate us. If it's so ineffective, why was it evolved and not a different system. Every animal that I know of can feel pain, so there must be a reason for that.

Pain is the least evolved of all our physical experiences, taking place first in the spinal cord, brain stem, and then brain. You are not being intellectually honest, ignoring all of the other motivations. We eat, have sex, and other activities not for fear of pain, but for love of the activity; for love of DOPAMINE. Humans have evolved to mostly deal in internal positive reinforcement, with pain as a generic warning. Pain is a very good way to learn that the stove is hot, or that horses kick when you stand behind them. Pain is not good at teaching abstractions, which is one part of recidivism in prisons; loss of freedom and suffering in prison is no match for the drive of dopamine and other neurotransmitters. Speaking of prison, any guard working in one can tell you what happens to people who are put in solitary confinement, and that is not full sensory deprivation. This is not complex, and when violence and pain and restrictions fail, locking a person away from anything but their cell for 23 hours a day, breaks them. The problem is that they break in unpredictable ways, which is why this technique is slowly titrated and monitored when used as interrogation.

If I knew it was rewarding good behavior, I could have figured it out. I was under the impression that it was a discipline for bad behavior.

Figured what out? I do not understand.

And those deleterious effects on me were what? It created a person who doesn't know how depriving a child of pleasures can make them behave? I understand how it can possibly motivate some kids, but I also realize on some kids it doesn't work. I'm saying some kids only respond to pain; you're saying all kids will respond to the way you would discipline them. That's arrogant.

I don't think getting personal is a good idea, you've begun to contradict previous generalizations. It is telling that you still cannot understand that pain is not needed for negative or positive reinforcement. I realize nothing I say will change your mind, and perhaps that is another effect. You seem aggressive, angry, and unreasonable to the point of not doing basic research to learn about torture, discipline, and more. I think you just want a fight, but I do not.

That doesn't sound like positive reinforcement.

So a child who gets spanked for misbehaving is a child who has nothing positive in their life?

I've had a few dogs and have been around dogs all my life. The problem isn't how the dog thinks, it's how the owner thinks. If a dog chews up a prized possession, the owner suddenly thinks the dog is being spiteful, purposely going after that one item. But they ignore the fact the dog chews up a lot of things and it was a matter of time before he got ahold of something important.

I did not say that a spanked child has nothing good or positive, I am comparing outcomes of different methods. Your last point is a good one, if only you could see the irony of it. The problem is not the child, but the people who raise them in this monolithic fashion. You can fully train a dog without every striking them ONCE, and you can do the same with a child, believe it or not.

This is the kind of mind I'm dealing with. You don't just disagree with what I say; what I say is "wrong".

What did DaveC say? "You say a lot of wrong things." Many of the things you say are factually wrong, and instead of learning, you simply hammer the same point.

More examples than I can name of tortures that do involve pain. Since non-pain related torture is apparently way more common.

After reading what Evo said, apparently you got it wrong too.

I wouldn't put words in Evo's mouth, let him/her speak for his/herself. For the torture, you seem to have no practical experience at all, and I do. Does it strike you as odd that when you asked about torture the first time, DaveC and I both gave you similar responses without consulting each other? Please read some on the subject before you make these wrong, and generalized statements. Yes, there are mores ways to torment someone with pain, but did I not keep saying this is about extraction of information? Do not attempt to move the goalposts.

leroyjenkens

May5-10, 03:34 PM

I have extensive experience working with people who have suffered from modern torture, and this is not arcane or strange knowledge. There is torture to inflict suffering, and there is torture to extract information. The first of course, uses pain, but that is only effective at traumatizing people. The latter, is very much what I, DaveC, and any reasonable source you find will tell you. What torture are you talking about? Branks? Iron Maidens? Skull-Screws and The Rack? These were about slow execution, with the goal of confession in mind, not extracting information.

They could be about getting a confession or extracting information. Either way, it worked. Why are you defining torture as something that's used to extract information?
Pain is the least evolved of all our physical experiences, taking place first in the spinal cord, brain stem, and then brain. You are not being intellectually honest, ignoring all of the other motivations. We eat, have sex, and other activities not for fear of pain, but for love of the activity; for love of DOPAMINE.
Yes, but what do you feel when you don't eat? Pain. And that motivates you to eat. If it wasn't effective, animals would regularly starve to death even in the presence of food.

And what makes you think it's "less evolved"?
Pain is a very good way to learn that the stove is hot, or that horses kick when you stand behind them. Pain is not good at teaching abstractions, which is one part of recidivism in prisons; loss of freedom and suffering in prison is no match for the drive of dopamine and other neurotransmitters.
That shows deprivation isn't all that effective.
Speaking of prison, any guard working in one can tell you what happens to people who are put in solitary confinement, and that is not full sensory deprivation. This is not complex, and when violence and pain and restrictions fail, locking a person away from anything but their cell for 23 hours a day, breaks them.
When violence and pain fail? What does that mean? Prison guards torture inmates? And when that fails, they put them in solitary and that works?
Figured what out? I do not understand.
Figured out what positive reinforcement was. I'm familiar with the idea; it's not like it's a foreign concept to me.
I don't think getting personal is a good idea, you've begun to contradict previous generalizations.
How is calling your idea arrogant any more personal than you saying my upbringing had a deleterious effect on me?
And what contradictions have I made? You just said that with no example.
It is telling that you still cannot understand that pain is not needed for negative or positive reinforcement.
I can understand that it's not needed. I never said it was necessary across the board.
I realize nothing I say will change your mind, and perhaps that is another effect.
Another effect of what? Me being spanked as a child?
I could say the same to you. Nothing I say will change your mind either, so we're even in that regard.
You seem aggressive, angry, and unreasonable to the point of not doing basic research to learn about torture, discipline, and more. I think you just want a fight, but I do not.
What are you doing? We're discussing something. I'm not attacking you or getting frustrated, that seems to be all you.
I did not say that a spanked child has nothing good or positive, I am comparing outcomes of different methods.
That's because I was talking to Dave, not you.
Your last point is a good one, if only you could see the irony of it. The problem is not the child, but the people who raise them in this monolithic fashion.
Why does spanking have to be the only punishment that parent uses?
You can fully train a dog without every striking them ONCE, and you can do the same with a child, believe it or not.
Depends on the dog and the child.
What did DaveC say? "You say a lot of wrong things." Many of the things you say are factually wrong, and instead of learning, you simply hammer the same point.
What have I said that's factually wrong? Anything that's different from your opinion?
You're saying that what you guys are arguing is the facts and I should be learning from it. Can you explain how that's not arrogant?
I could just as easily do the same thing, but it's not constructive.
I wouldn't put words in Evo's mouth, let him/her speak for his/herself.
I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. We can both read what's been said. Did I misconstrue what was said?
For the torture, you seem to have no practical experience at all, and I do.
You have torture experience?
Even if you do, that's an appeal to authority fallacy.
Does it strike you as odd that when you asked about torture the first time, DaveC and I both gave you similar responses without consulting each other?
No, it's not odd at all. Lots of people have similar opinions. The fact you two agree on a subject isn't at all uncanny.
Yes, there are mores ways to torment someone with pain, but did I not keep saying this is about extraction of information? Do not attempt to move the goalposts.
Wait a minute. Move the goalposts? This is the first time I've seen you mention extracting information. How can I move goalposts that you just now set?

IcedEcliptic

May5-10, 04:54 PM

They could be about getting a confession or extracting information. Either way, it worked. Why are you defining torture as something that's used to extract information?

Yes, but what do you feel when you don't eat? Pain. And that motivates you to eat. If it wasn't effective, animals would regularly starve to death even in the presence of food.

And what makes you think it's "less evolved"?

That shows deprivation isn't all that effective.

When violence and pain fail? What does that mean? Prison guards torture inmates? And when that fails, they put them in solitary and that works?

Figured out what positive reinforcement was. I'm familiar with the idea; it's not like it's a foreign concept to me.

How is calling your idea arrogant any more personal than you saying my upbringing had a deleterious effect on me?
And what contradictions have I made? You just said that with no example.

I can understand that it's not needed. I never said it was necessary across the board.

Another effect of what? Me being spanked as a child?
I could say the same to you. Nothing I say will change your mind either, so we're even in that regard.

What are you doing? We're discussing something. I'm not attacking you or getting frustrated, that seems to be all you.

That's because I was talking to Dave, not you.

Why does spanking have to be the only punishment that parent uses?

Depends on the dog and the child.

What have I said that's factually wrong? Anything that's different from your opinion?
You're saying that what you guys are arguing is the facts and I should be learning from it. Can you explain how that's not arrogant?
I could just as easily do the same thing, but it's not constructive.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. We can both read what's been said. Did I misconstrue what was said?

You have torture experience?
Even if you do, that's an appeal to authority fallacy.

No, it's not odd at all. Lots of people have similar opinions. The fact you two agree on a subject isn't at all uncanny.

Wait a minute. Move the goalposts? This is the first time I've seen you mention extracting information. How can I move goalposts that you just now set?

I said that I don't want a fight, I'm sorry if I upset you. I am not here to argue about torture, or make this thread be something it is not. I do not think I can do this inside of the forum rules, you know? It is clear from the context that I am not talking about tormenting someone in the Inquisition, because we are talking about modifying behaviour, not torture for the sake of torture. I introduced torture as an example myself, and I may have been unclear.

There is a reason that even torture rarely relies on pain.

It is? I thought the definition of torture is something painful. Can you name one of the apparently many torture techniques that don't rely on pain?

So, I listed them, and DaveC did too. Two different people understood the context, but not you. You're trying to score points, and I was trying to be talking about a subject, not fight about it. I can list more examples, but why? I would be continuing this fight, and it would not be polite inside of forum guidelines.

I want to add one thing, what is the the difference between saying that one facet of your upbringing seems to have had deleterious effects, and your claim of arrogance is simple by analogy: I am shot in the leg, and limp for the rest of my life. You notice this, and note that being shot has harmed me. Saying that someone is arrogant, is an insult, true or not. I am not so egotistical that I believe I am free of arrogance, so I will not say you are wrong. Still, one is an observation of how you react and your inability to see viewpoints other than your own in this, and the other is just unkind. Arrogant is bad, damaged is just damaged, and I am not saying that we do not all have damage in our childhoods. I did not say that you are less than me, or anyone else. You also asked me how I knew anything about torture, and now you both distrust that, and dismiss it even if I did. That is playing games, not having a discussion. At last, by less evolved I mean this literally; it is an old part of our nervous system that has not changed very much among vertebrates, and especially mammals.

Zantra

May6-10, 02:00 AM

wow this post has devolved into a disucssion on torture....let's backtrack

Are we then saying that spanking is a black or white issue? That any form of spanking does not have the desired effect? All of these stories people share about thier children-they involve children who respond well to positive input, who are capable of higher reasoning, understanding, and learning through verbal guidance. not every child is thie way. Some children are naturally ill-tempered, have attention span issues, or just plain mischevious. The WHY of that is a topic for another thread, but the bottom line is that not ALL children respond well to reinforcement.

EVO child seems particularly blessed, I know my child has never warranted corporal punishment of any consequence, but I know of many children who may have ADD or other emotion problems, which can be psychological (family-based) cognitive, OR hereditary, and those children will not understand consequence, or cause and effect quite as easliy.

For most children, as a rare case due to thier extreme behavior, one swift tap on the behind will hurt thier feelings more than their bottom, and help them understand unacceptable behavior. I'm talking about getting thier attention, not whaling on them, and I'm talking about reinforcing that by explaining to them exactly why you did it, and how they can correct thier behavior. Long term, repeated spankings are ineffective and instill fear. A tap on the behind when your child is completely out of control brings them back to reality, and if explained properly should instill undertanding, not fear. If you whip out the belt every other day, then yes, it's a fear thing.

This is what I meant about knee-jerk conservatism on this topic. Now we're equating spanking with torture. big stretch. this is not an issue of absolutes, it has many many shades of grey, so let's not paint it with such broad strokes.

Zantra

May6-10, 02:17 AM

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Grandma-Arrested-for-Slapping-Granddaughter--92874714.html

Remind me again why spanking is wrong..lol

DaveC426913

May6-10, 07:05 AM

This is the kind of mind I'm dealing with. You don't just disagree with what I say; what I say is "wrong".

Yes. It is not simply my opinion versus your opinion. You tend to make generalizations that are easy to refute.

Just one example: you claim dogs do not misbehave to get attention. I claim they do. You need to be right about all cases. I only need one case to refute your argument.

leroyjenkens

May6-10, 09:52 AM

It is clear from the context that I am not talking about tormenting someone in the Inquisition, because we are talking about modifying behaviour, not torture for the sake of torture. I introduced torture as an example myself, and I may have been unclear.
Well torture in the inquisition wasn't torture for the sake of torture. It was torture to renounce your religion or convert to Christianity.
So, I listed them, and DaveC did too.
You didn't prove that torture rarely relies on pain. That's what you said.
You're trying to score points, and I was trying to be talking about a subject, not fight about it.
What about this is a fight? You're the one who keeps mentioning fighting, getting upset, arguing and all that other stuff. I'm simply discussing the points as I see them.
How am I trying to score points?
How am I doing anything different from what you're doing?
I can list more examples, but why? I would be continuing this fight, and it would not be polite inside of forum guidelines.
Why? Because you said something that needs to be proven. I'm not just going to accept it because you're afraid you'll violate the rules by proving it.
I want to add one thing, what is the the difference between saying that one facet of your upbringing seems to have had deleterious effects, and your claim of arrogance is simple by analogy: I am shot in the leg, and limp for the rest of my life. You notice this, and note that being shot has harmed me. Saying that someone is arrogant, is an insult, true or not.
So you're saying that what you said is a fact and what I said is an opinion and an insult to boot.
Well, you don't know that having been spanked had a deleterious effect on me. Especially since you didn't explain in what way it had a deleterious effect on me.

And I didn't call you arrogant. I called your statement arrogant. You're acting like you're allowed to say negative things about people because it's a fact, but if they respond in kind, it's an insult because what they said isn't a fact.
You even noted that even if it were true that you were in fact arrogant, it would still be an insult to say so. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade if there's no malice intended in it.
You also asked me how I knew anything about torture, and now you both distrust that, and dismiss it even if I did. That is playing games, not having a discussion.
Your reasoning was fallacious. You can call it playing games, but that's just another fallacy on your part.
it is an old part of our nervous system that has not changed very much among vertebrates, and especially mammals.
And why do you think that is? Because it was effective. It would have changed if it wasn't.
Yes. It is not simply my opinion versus your opinion. You tend to make generalizations that are easy to refute.

Just one example: you claim dogs do not misbehave to get attention. I claim they do. You need to be right about all cases. I only need one case to refute your argument.
And I need to be right about one not misbehaving to get attention to refute your argument, which is the opposite of mine. You also need to be right about all cases. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.