WHY IS THE DEBATE ON SPANKING SILLY? — UPDATE

Children’s Games Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) (explanation here)
Children’s Games by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) (explanation here)

UPDATEvioletwisp has just posted evidence for the benefits of spanking. Supposedly, we Christians have not provided any evident for benefits of spanking. Since I never could figure out exactly what it was, I could say the same about ‘s “technique”. I did not even think to ask for evidence. Evidence of what?

However, that’s not why I gave up debating the issue with her.  My motivation was more along these lines. Imagine you are dealing with an ISIS terrorist, and that terrorist asks you to justify your continued existence.

Here is where is coming from. Here is her reply to my comment here.

violetwisp on February 12, 2017 at 10:41 am said:

“she disapproves of punishing children when they do wrong”
Absolutely! It’s all about setting good examples and providing reasons for behaving in a socialised manner that takes other people’s feelings into consideration. Children aren’t ‘bad’, they’re just clueless about social norms until they’re sufficiently exposed to them, and they have some very basic needs (food, rest, comfort) that people tend to overlook before they launch into counter-productive disciplining. And this is one of the reasons I can never accept the Christian god in the Bible – the caricature of this omniscient being punishing its puny creation is disgusting.

is not an ISIS terrorist, but obviously does not think highly of Christianity. I think it suffices to say she prefers Christians were extinct. There is no point in debating your right to exist and that’s the debate wants.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST

Do you want to get an inkling of the sheer silliness of some people’s priorities? May I suggest you read some of the comments to this post:  punishing children. Because the conversation is so shallow, I have given up commenting.

Our ancestors struggled to survive. Pain was unavoidable, but we are so modern. For us spanking is suppose to be a grand tragedy, but it really isn’t. We still cannot completely avoid pain.

  • There is still physical pain. Many a cancer patient can tell you about that, and bullies still beat up their classmates.
  • There is emotional pain. Failed dreams. Rejection. A death in the family.

What is different from the past? I am not certain anything really is different. I just know people who insist upon making an issue of spanking apparently don’t have anything better to do.

What follows are some are some of the comments from punishing children.

So My Neighbor Spanks His Child? That’s A Problem?

violetwisp on February 17, 2017 at 6:57 pm said:

“Some how, some way parents must teach a child to control that belief, that pride in self. More often than not before a child can learn the rewards of loving someone, that child must learn the consequences of arrogance the hard way.”

Where’s the ‘must’? Tildeb and Barry, quite calmly, have explained to you how gentle, reasonable techniques have more positive effects on children. If you take issue with that, show me somewhere (there must be somewhere, right?) that can demonstrate the positive effects of parenting with violence (or physical discipline, if you prefer). I can’t find any.

  • @violetwisp

    What Tildeb’s and Barry’s explanation comes down to is that they have different ways of punishing a disobedient child. The notion that we can always reason with a wilful two-year old is just silly. Moreover, as you suggested your post, “punishing children”, ANY form of punishment can be taken to an extreme.

    The Bible doesn’t actually say we have to spank a child, and that is not really the issue. What the Bible says is that if we punish a child because we love that child and want them to behave, that child will survive and be better off for it.

    What you are preoccupied with is making other parents raise their children your way. Not my problem.

    Spanking a child is not child abuse. Child neglect — not teaching a child to behave — is child abuse. Yet silly people get all worked up about spanking. That’s mostly just because a few people lose it, and the bruises and broken bones are obvious. Newspapers can get vivid photos, and the virtue signalers can tell us how they would never do that.
    🙄

    I suppose stupid sadists also beat kids half to death, but abuse has many other, more subtle forms.

    Neglect, I suspect is a more common problem. Even if we feed, cloth, and shelter a child, we still neglect that child if we don’t teach that child self-discipline. Until we learn self-discipline, we are not prepared for life.

Setting The Threshold Way Too Low

violetwisp on February 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm said:

This is a real problem. I hate seeing children needlessly suffering. There’s simply no reason to approach parenting with any form of violence.

  • When people speak of virtue signaling and a bleeding heart, what are they talking about? It is about setting the threshold for suffering so low it is an insult to those who actually are suffering.

    You want to understand pain? Then study the matter. Imagine being skinned alive. Then compare that to a spanking.

So what is the point of this post? Is it about spanking? No. It is about priorities. People were spanking their children long before recorded history. That does not make it right, but spanking works well. Perfectly? No. For example, as an child grows older spanking becomes a greater offense to his or her dignity, and we are big into self-esteem these days. Hence, spanking is not as popular as once was.  Still, children need to be disciplined.

So what is the point of this post? If you are represented by a politician who advocates a complete ban of spanking, even within the privacy of your neighbors’ homes, you have my sincere pity. That man has no sense of proportion. What he wants is simply a waste of government resources and a good example of why government should not be in the businesses of educating our children. Do we need such busybodies sticking their noses into our lives and interfering with how we raise our children? No.

When we vote, we need to vote for someone who can tell the difference between a real crime and a difference of opinion that offends his ever so superior sensibilities.

AMBUSHED AGAIN…..SIGH!

childrenI suppose I should know better than to post comments on some blogs.  Shrug.

To prove something or other (figure it out for yourself), violetwisp posted a fragment of a comment I made on her blog. See punishing children. I suppose I could comment in some detail, but I won’t bother. Mostly, I will just post a few comments from this post: breaking news: more bible translation errors discovered also at violetwisp.

Why not say more? When I read their comments at punishing children, it quickly became obvious that the people whose opinions I care about think violetwisp is being absurd.

So here is my reply. We make choices. Then we deal with the consequences, but some people grow up thinking they are exempt from suffering the consequences of their bad choices. Those people try to shift the consequences of their bad choices onto others. The enslavement of others is an extreme example of such behavior.

Children who receive proper discipline know that it is not right to make others suffer the consequences of their bad choices. That’s the basic difference between a responsible citizen and one who isn’t. The responsible citizen accepts personal responsibility. It also seems to be a big difference between the Modern Liberal and a Conservative. Hence that is probably why Modern Liberals and Conservatives divide so predictably on this issue.

Anyway, violetwisp has given me a good excuse to post some Bible verses.

To our modern ears, the Bible can make discipline sound harsh.

Proverbs 23:12-14 New King James Version (NKJV)

12 Apply your heart to instruction,
And your ears to words of knowledge.

13 Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
14 You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell.

Beating a child with a rod sounds awful, but consider the alternative.  The rod was for the child who would not listen.

Proverbs 29:15 New King James Version (NKJV)

15 The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.

Moreover, the point of proverb is to encourage parents to save their children, not hurt them. The point is to get a child’s attention so they will listen.

When I was little, I was a rascal. My mother was a small woman.  Once she realized spanking me with her hand hurt her hand more than my butt, she began using a wooden brush.  Still, I was trouble and had an uncontrolled temper.  When I threw a toy gun (made with metal in those days) and hit another child, my father used his belt on my butt. After that, I finally began to understand the consequences of bad behavior.

Anyway (again), here is the first link (to my first comment in the thread) to the comments in the thread violet that violetwisp extracted a fragment of one of my comment on her post.

https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/breaking-news-more-bible-translation-errors-discovered/#comment-29948

Here is the full text of the comment that the fragment violetwisp quoted came from.

@violet

We are works in progress. We each have to deal with our problems as we best know how.

Did I discipline my children as well as I should have? No. I have a temper, and the ability of my eldest when she was two to set it off scared me. So I would have been stupid to wait until I was furious. Did that once. Did not hurt the kid, but I was thoroughly ashamed that I was about to lose it. It is important to be meek.

Just the same, when my wife was home alone with two kids, she had to do something with the older child or she could not take care of the new-born. She finally conceded the necessity of punishment (spanking was not something she liked either). Mostly she just stuck the two-year old in the backyard (fenced) until the child agreed to behave. Even with a shaded patio deck, Houston, TX can be quite uncomfortable without air-conditioning. Watching that stubborn, wilful little girl cry hurt my lady more than it did my eldest. Still, it worked.

There are spankings, and then there are very disagreeable alternatives that are just as punishing. Frankly, I prefer what my wife did, but it takes more patience, and the weather has to cooperate.

Why was the oldest misbehaving? Part of the reason is that she had lost her status as the center of mommy’s attention. So mommy included her as much as she could in taking care of her sister. Still, two-year old children will act up, and sometimes the “reason” for their bad behavior is they just want to do something they know they are not suppose to do. Even a two-year old child can be a control freak, and that kid was smart. She is an MD now. (from => https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/breaking-news-more-bible-translation-errors-discovered/#comment-30008)

Here is the first link in another thread on the same post that that also relates disciplining children.
https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/breaking-news-more-bible-translation-errors-discovered/#comment-29896

I suspect these two comments are the ones that most irked violetwisp.

  • “she disapproves of punishing children when they do wrong”
    Absolutely! It’s all about setting good examples and providing reasons for behaving in a socialised manner that takes other people’s feelings into consideration. Children aren’t ‘bad’, they’re just clueless about social norms until they’re sufficiently exposed to them, and they have some very basic needs (food, rest, comfort) that people tend to overlook before they launch into counter-productive disciplining. And this is one of the reasons I can never accept the Christian god in the Bible – the caricature of this omniscient being punishing its puny creation is disgusting.

    • @violet

      Well, you just gave away the game.

      It was never was anything about what insanitybytes22 actually said. It was about your perception, what you believe. It was about the fact Christianity offends you. Its mere existence offends you.

      I was that way once. The notion of God dying on a cross caused me to roll up my eyes. I could not understand the idea of original sin, that we are born with an affliction that only the love of God can cure. And the idea of a God with so much power…… What was little Tommy compared to Him?

      I have watch children grow. Brothers. A sister. My own. They are not entirely clueless. They waste no time learning the word “mine”. We are born with an insatiable pride. ME FIRST!

      Only love can quench a child’s pride, but first we must get a child’s attention. Without a bit a of mild punishment that’s next to impossible. With one child? Maybe. We can hold a child until it is willing to accept direction, if you have the time. With two or more? No way. Not even the most devoted stay at home mom or dad has that kind of time.

      If you love your kids, the choice between letting them run wild and smacking them on the bottom quickly becomes obvious. At least it does for people who raise their own kids.

I don’t think violetwisp liked my explanation of her attack oninsanitybytes22, not that I said anything that was not obvious to everyone from the start.

IS IT REALLY ABOUT BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN OR A SUCKER?

heartbleedHere some questions for commenters. What’s the issue? We have a bunch of Americans prominently displaying their hearts decrying the xenophobia of their fellow Americans. They tell us all about what the Good Samaritan and Jesus would do. What is their interpretation of scripture?  Apparently, they want open borders.

Those with their hearts prominently displayed excuse their position by pointing to the needs of the immigrants. They say nothing about the needs of America. After all, are we not a rich country? Are we not a nation of immigrants? How could open borders be a problem?

  • What makes immigration today different from the past BEFORE we had a BIG GOVERNMENT with humongous health, education, and welfare programs?
  • Are there reasonable alternatives? Can we help the world’s poor without bringing everyone and his uncle to the United States?
  • What are those with their hearts prominently displayed for all to see getting out of all those dirt poor immigrants coming to the United States. That is, are their motives as pure as they pretend?
  • What are the people opposed to unfettered immigration more scared of? Is it  immigrants or out-of-control government?
  • With respect to immigration, do Americans have any legitimate right to control immigration? That is, do non-citizens and citizen have equal rights under our Constitution?
  • How did we get into this silly mess?

Are you under the delusion that the men in black robes are always just? Do you think the lawyers who lead our nation are always thinking of our best interests? Read this =>Protecting consumers from swindlers

No. It not related to the subject at hand. It is just a great example of how professional politicians have rigged the system to line the pockets of their buddies.

A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IN DECLINE

preamble to the constitutionDo I hate the US Catholic Bishops? No. Do I think they are especially bad people? No.  Nevertheless, I think their stance on immigration is stupidly immoral. What is their stance? See for yourself: Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform.

How did I come across the statement the US Catholic Bishops made on immigration. A commenter (here) cited them as some kind of authority and posted a link. I replied (here). Here is the gist of what I said.

The Democratic Party advocates open borders; it just calls it something else. You pointed to a naive front group like the US Catholic Bishops. At the same time those bishops are suppose to be fighting against the killing of babies, abortion, they are working to guarantee Democrat victories at the polls. I don’t have to mock the authority of those men. They do it themselves.

What the US Catholic Bishops want is effectively a second immigration amnesty. SECOND immigration amnesty. We need a second one because the last one worked so well? For whom?

We have always had controlled immigration into this country. Now it is far more difficult. What is different now? People can travel more easily, of course, but what is crucial is our health, education, and welfare programs. Need I say the obvious? Democrats are eager to use these programs to buy the votes of gullible immigrants. (from here)

The US Catholic Bishops have a similar stance with respect to refugees. That is, they disliked President Trump’s Executive Order halting immigration from seven nations that are currently ungovernable. The US Catholic Bishops’ statement on the executive order is available at this post: US Catholic Bishops Publicly Shame President Trump Today At Church by Silence of Mind.

Disgusted, I commented that too. Here is the gist of what I said in my first comment.

What do we call people who substitute weeping emotion for rational thought? Helen Thomas, a White House reporter, ironically invented the expression when she told us how much her heart bleeds.

It is an unfortunate fact of life, but lots of clerics are bleeding hearts. Europe is being overrun by people who do not have any use for democracy. Once their government collapses, where are the Europeans supposed to go? Here? Why would want more brainless fools? Don’t we have enough already?

Seriously, when you play chess, to win you have to think 4 – 5 moves ahead. If we accept millions of refugees, I agree that solves the immediate problem. We have already put who even knows how many such people on welfare, and we are still not bankrupt. Just the same, if we keep accepting refugees and putting them on welfare, the consequences are readily predictable. The refugees will vote Democrat. That’s why the Democrats want them.

In addition, because our taxes are already out of sight because of expensive heath, education, and welfare programs, absorbing endless refugees will just cause our economy will fold up and close shop. We will also become a multilingual nation, a tower of Babel (That’s why the European Union never had a chance.). The collapse will be complete when our government becomes tyrannical. That is the only way it will be able to maintain order. If you have any doubts about the tyrannical part, consider all the disruptions the Democrats are causing Trump. The jackasses are deliberately trying to make the country ungovernable, and they think that is a smart move. The Nazis did the same sort of thing to the Weimar Republic.
🙄 (from here)

The US Catholic Bishops are ignoring the teachings of the Bible.  What is our basic problem? We don’t love each other enough, right? Does putting on a big show that supposedly shows how much we care solve that problem? No. Does overloading our health, education, and welfare systems solve that problem? No. Does electing a bunch of Democrats solve that problem? No. Does creating a situation that is guaranteed to foment immense social strife solve that problem? No.

Here is the other comment I left behind.

Hypocrites, people who only pretend to be highly and even perfectly moral, cannot make a constitutional republic work. The reason is simple enough. They won’t truly abide by the constitution. They will only make the pretense that that is what they are doing. Meanwhile, they will accuse their opponents of every damned thing they can imagine.

Still, the proof of their duplicity comes from their own lips. It is they, to excuse their lies, who call the Constitution a “living document”. With those two words they render the Constitution meaningless, and they think themselves clever. Yet with those two words they also expose the proof of all their own lies. (from here)

The modern Democratic Party and many in the Republican Party engage in legalism.  Like the Pharisees of old, they supposedly uphold a complex legalistic code. This code they tell us is quite honorable, but unlike the nonsense the Pharisees taught their lie can be easily seen. Their code is living; it conforms to the politics of the moment.  As they say, IT IS ALIVE! It is in truth a dishonorable monstrosity.

Should we help refugees from war zones? Of course, we should, but destroying our own culture and almost deliberately sowing social strife into our society will not help anyone. It just spreads the problems the refugees are trying to flee. Don’t we already have enough trouble getting along with each other? Isn’t adding bunches and bunches of poorly educated refugees, many accustomed to violence, like adding fuel to a fire?

Here is the order President Donald Trump issued: EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES. As you read it, consider what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8. It explicitly authorizes Congress to control immigration policy. Effectively, the Federal Government (unless a Republican is in office) has plenary power over immigration policy.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (from here)

Therefore, the only question before a court should be whether Congress has authorized the president to deny restrict travel to our nation from nations that are deemed threats. In fact, since the president’s primary job is commander-in-chief, doesn’t he have that responsibility already?

So what did the Ninth Circuit Court decide when the Trump administration appealed to it and asked it to stay District Court Judge James L. Robart’s order which had ruled Trump’s unconstitutional and effectively revoked it.  The Ninth Circuit Court let Robart’s order stand.  See Motion for Stay of an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding. Why? Here are a couple of examples of the ridiculous logic.

  • Foreigners have 5th Amendment rights. Effectively, using such logic, foreigners have the right to enter the United States any time they want to do so. We may as well call them citizens.
  • Foreigners have 1st Amendment rights. Does that mean foreigners have freedom of assembly in the United States. Why don’t we just lay out the welcome mat for foreign armies? Congress has in the past favored immigration from certain nations over others. Why? We shared a similar cultural heritage, including religious heritage. Commonsense, now seemingly in short supply, dictates that immigration from such nations would be less disruptive.

So, do foreigners, foreigners who are not even in our country, have rights under our Constitution? Well, the Framers made it explicitly clear whose rights they wrote OUR Constitution to protect.  See the Preamble at the beginning of this post.

This is not just bad law. It is insane. Those judges need to be removed from the bench. This decision is legal malpractice. If the judges on the Supreme Court don’t have enough good sense to overturn such blatant BS, God help us.  Hopefully, our new Attorney General will take the case over and devise a successful strategy.

Other Views