Why people have so many children?

[IcedEcliptic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 their 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 their extreme behavior, one swift tap on the behind will hurt their feelings more than their bottom, and help them understand unacceptable behavior. I'm talking about getting their 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 their 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]

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

Remind me again why spanking is wrong..lol

 

[DaveC426913]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

This thread hasn't been on topic for pages. Closed.