Understanding Consequences
22 Nov 2013, 9:11 am
CharityFunDay wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
Your original point seemed to be that pain was the best way of making animals and small children understand.
No my original point was that when children cannot perceive negative social outcomes to their behaviour, then that negativity is best impressed upon then at an instinctual level of understanding. I proposed smacking, but if anyone has a better method of communicating the immediate undesirability of a consequence to a child's actions, I will be glad to learn of it.
Which, according to your theory, if your theory was not a gigantic container shipload of s**t, should have leaded me to be the most behaving kid of all. But because of your theory, simply being a bunch of nonsense, taught to you by someone that blamed you for his own inabilities and that you got teached by an aggressive wanna be adulted, being unable too educate you in normal ways as normal parents do, it only leaded to me being the winner of the third price in the contest of "Getting as much as possible exhortations, warnings and punishments in school history." (And it was an school you could have visited for 8 years, and I only went there five years. XD )
So your theory of beating having anything to do with teaching a child education and behavior, is proofen to be nonsense. You do that by educating by child. By beating it, your simply beating it. Nothing of that teaches a child manners. If beating teaches anything, you can simply test yourself, by beating your head again and again against a wall, and then see if there is any increase of knowledge in you? Do you think you will be able to learn about shakespears novels by beating your head against a wall? Do you think, that doing so is able to increase your knowledge about geology? I think not? So why the hell do you think, that beating your head against a wall, should cause you to increase your knowledge about causes to propper behave? ^^
Quote:
Perhaps, for example, they could be encouraged to consider their misdeeds to the backdrop of a haunting selection of panpipe melodies?
Was that all your dad was capable to do? Being aggressive by beating you, and being a hypocrite by telling himself as stupid excuse, that the only alternative to beating you, would have been playing panpipes? Quote:
Quote:
What do you think will happen when the child is big enough to hit the parent back and hasn't been taught by any method other than "Do this or I'll hit you."?
I believe that if this were even conceptually a common response to childhood chastisement, it would have been demonstrated throughout the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s in the form of an epidemic of attacks upon parents by their children.
Whereas the reality of corporal punishment was well-evidenced during this stage, attacks on parents were not.
Quote:
Quote:
My "fascinating" method is the one recommended by dog-training experts, for the trivial reason that it actually house-trains dogs rather than having scared dogs who are being punished for no reason that they can understand, because unless you catch a dog in the act, it won't connect the punishment to the carpet soiling: if you do it 5 minutes later when it's lounging around minding its own business, it will think it's being punished for lounging around minding its own business.
As I say, I first proposed the dog-training metaphor as a distinct example of interactions which could only be understood at the physical/emotional level. I did not intend to enter into debate on the best methods of house-training a puppy, which I would regard as comical were it not for the fact that they are ways of specifically avoiding the subject in hand: Which is, how to impress upon a youngster with limited social perceptions, the undesirable social consequences of actions such as taking a knife into school?
So, yes. Please teach us. So how do you want to do that with your beating theory. So I take a knife into school, you turn into a bastard and beat the s**t out of me..., and then my schoolbag magically is not able to contain knifes anymore? You beating someone only results into bruises and lacerations. Thats it, nothing more. If you want to effectively, prevent me physically to carry knifes with me, you have to brake my arms and legs and fingers. Thats the only possibility to physically prevent me to do so again. By physically disabling me to do so. But smacking me, beating me with a belt? How exactly shall that prevent me from doing so again the next day? Is there some kind of Voodoo-ritual behind it, preventing by magic my hand to grab a knife again? No. Or out of respect? How often exactly have you asked cockroaches, about their opinions and respected that? Why should I even get into the idea of respecting someones opinion, that showed clearly to be an idiotic as*hole and cockroach, and so clearly having no oppinion that would be worth to be respected? By beating you simply show a kid, that you deserved to be disrespected. And by more beating, you simply make sure, that you dont deserve respect in any way. Throwing wood blocks against my head? Yop, really, now THAT idiotic behavior, proofing someone to be an really, really, REALLY stupid as*hole, will cause me to respect someone. *rofl*
The educators in border school, treating me respectfully. THEY got my respect, and so THEIR Opinion was of interest to me. But stupid cockroaches, can kiss my ass. Or did you ever have the idea: "Oh, that guy treats me like a total as*hole and s**t. So I should question myself, how I can please him, to make his life better." ^^
Blaming the victim is typical offender-tactic, to excuse their behavior before themselves, and give them the ability not to face their own bad behavior and failures. Your father did not beat you, out of your inabilities, but because of his inabilities.
