Subject:
|
Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:01:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Frank Filz <ffilz-lists@mindspring.com#Spamless#>
|
Viewed:
|
509 times
|
| |
|
|
> 1. I dispute the assertion that verbal instruction is generally • sufficient to
> steer a recalcitrant child away from ultimately self-damaging behavior
>
> 2. I dispute the assertion that physical intervention in a child's • behavior is
> never justified.
I don't think Chris has ever said that. Now I may be shortcutting Chris's
recent posts, but I know in the past that Chris has said that if a kid was
about to run in front of a car, he would grab the kid. He has also stated
that he would do the same if an adult was about to run in front of a car.
On the first point, I think Chris's contention is that there is no need to
prevent anyone from relatively minor harm. Now I guess if the person
continues to fail to learn from the verbal instruction and consequences,
then you have a person who is somehow disabled, and a different course of
action must be taken.
> 3. I submit that your construction of the parent/child debt structure is • at its
> essence arbitrary and designed to yield maximum payoff (i.e., zero debt) • for the
> child and maximum debt (i.e., zero payoff) for the parent.
Hmm, I wanted to respond to this but I got distracted from this post, and
lost my place. Maybe I'll come back to this tomorrow...
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| (...) Hey, don't get all reasonable on me now! I can cut through my verbosity and sum it up this way: 1. I dispute the assertion that verbal instruction is generally sufficient to steer a recalcitrant child away from ultimately self-damaging (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
