I can also give you a supporting example.
Children, until they learn pain on their own body, don't fear almost anything. it is society that teaches us what is fearful, what is scary, what is disgusting, etc. ever noticed how babies aren't stepping away from their own feces?
so my point is, that in case it is pain or danger we're talking about, giving your child a slap on the face(not too hard of course) is definitely an option. kid sends his hand to see how hot the BOILING WATER are -




*slaps kid with a bat on the head*

...well, as you might have figured, this really isn't a repeating assault..

Corporal punishment doesn't have any long-term benefits and vastly increases the chances of the child growing up emotionally damaged and aggressive. Quite literally the only benefit of corporal punishment over non-corporal punishment is the immediate effect. However, this has nothing to do with learning. In the long term the children will behave the same regardless of their method of punishment. It is nothing more to vent your frustration.
And this is after the actually harmful corporal punishments were filtered out.
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539

Corporal punishment needs to be banned by law, just like any other form of physical abuse.

are we talking about the same thing?..
If a child goes and seems to be on his way to stick his hand into the oven, are you going to tell him 'go to your room' or actually prevent him from doing that? O_o...

And you think slapping him is going to teach him that lesson? All he will learn from that is that you are a horrible person. He will still try to stick his hand in the oven the next time. He isn't afraid of the oven, he is afraid of you.

no lol, but he won't be afraid of me. small kids do not learn to be afraid of their parents, that's why the problem of child abuse exists. If such a thing happens, the kid will learn that doing it makes his parents angry, disappoints them. of course this is not literally what they learn, but this is how psycho researchs called it - "disappointment". and maybe they will try doing it again once or twice, but not more. then when they grow up they'll understand themselves why it happened. No kid is going to fear or hate their parents for 'slapping' them lol. It happens once in a while, but it is only to show extreme mistakes/deeds.

I'm guessing my english here really isn't that good, hehe.

In Israel, the law states that a parent can slap their child not more than once a month, and even when he does that, the amount of pain inflicted should be on a maximum of 2.5/10 in the pain scale.

that law is just so freakin stupid, lol. It's like people take notes of the date they slap, and do it regularly of course, and know exactly what the pain scale IS, lol, and of course what is 2.5 in it. *so stupid*

I learnt about that law when it was published on the newspaper, after a parent was found to abuse his son by burning him with metal every time or something. that guy was put in jail for a few years

!?

What, are you saying that small children have somewhere to run?

Kids learn by doing. If the oven hurts the child, it will learn that the oven is something to keep away from. Same thing with a parent. If the parent hurts the child, the child learns to stay away from the parent so that it won't get hurt.

that's a good attitude, except that it caused me to have split my uh...what'sitsname..chin! like a thousand times, and I have a friend who by that attitude spilled over himself a pot of boiling water and has a three dimensional scar from that.

point is, if a kid tries to walk and falls, obviously that is not the way, and he learns by doing. but if a kid tries to swallow a knife, yeah, I'd slap him once or twice.

Why on earth would any child do that?

Either out of curiosity or accident. Or some other weird s/m reason. =P

To be fair to the test, my views are quite odd, and are not really represented by any political party.

Firstly, I am anti-EU. Sadly, the only truly anti-EU party in the UK is the BNP, who are borderline racists. Secondly, I am extremely liberal socially. Thirdly, I believe that companies have a duty not to harm people, but no more. Finally, I want higher taxes on the rich.

lol I think taxes on the rich should be like 80% too hehe

When I was little, like 3~4, I kept biting a plugged in power cord for a lamp. Because I was touching the ground, if I had bit through the insulation, it's likely that the electricity would have gone through my heart and killed me. That didn't happen because my dad came over and took it from me, gave me a swat on the butt, and said not to do it anymore. This isn't a right vs wrong issue. Kids just don't understand the world enough. It doesn't matter if I fear biting the electrical cord because of the electricity or because of my parents, I learned that this action, biting the cord, had this consequence, getting smacked. So I didn't do it anymore. Now I know about electricity, but you can't expect a 3-year old to understand that they could die if they do something like that.

Amendment One passed.

WHAAAAAAAAT

Actually, it isn't. The voltage from an electric socket isn't nearly enough to kill a human, it just hurts like hell. Especially in the US, where the voltage is about half lower than Europe.
And I was never smacked, yet I'm still alive. My parents told me that stuff like that could seriously hurt or even kill me. I don't know about you, but I won't try stuff that I've been told will kill me.

And sniper was smacked, yet he's still a functional human being not afraid of his parents.

Whether or not a parent chooses to spank their children generally just depends on whether or not they want to use pain as a form of punishment. It doesn't cause actual physical harm, so I don't view spanking as something that is absolutely abhorrent that should never be done under any circumstances. But at the same time, there are other things that can be done to punish children, so it's not like I think every parent should spank their child; to each their own.

But regardless of what the punishment is, be it spanking or forcing them to sit in a corner for 10 minutes, the child will fear the punishment all the same. And I think that the argument that they'll fear their parents is garbage, because despite being little children, they're still perceptive enough to pick up on patterns.

For example, whenever my dog goes on a barking tirade, I call him over and scold him aggressively. He doesn't fear me when he's just laying around minding his own business, but if he goes on a barking tirade, and I call him over again, he's going to come to with that submissive sad dog act on because he knows what he did was wrong, and that I'm about to scold him because of it. My point: The child doesn't fear their parent, they fear the impending punishment when they get caught doing something wrong. I find the notion that a child is going to grow up hating his parents because they spanked him when he was little, laughable. It's not like this is a drunken father coming home and beating his kids regularly, this is a child doing something wrong and getting punished for it. I think you could really only argue that it would have that effect if they did it all throughout their childhood as opposed to early on in their childhood.

And with that said, this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen on here.

With regards to this:

Obama now supports same-sex marriage.

I need a reverse no smiley.


Anyway, Quirvy, if you say there's alternate solutions - why should pain be allowed as a solution if there's other methods available? Would you use pain as a method of teaching on anyone else?

Edit: http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
And there you have it.

Actually, it's the current that kills you, not voltage. That's why people survive lightning strikes, and it's also why defibrillators work but don't burn your skill. Voltage burns, current kills.

1. Because it works.
2. Yes.

Woops, didn't mean to double post.
Anyways, one example of using pain as a teaching tool is bullies. Try talking your way out of a bully's sights. Doesn't work. Sometimes pain is the only thing that people will listen to. Unreasonable people do exist, and that means that you can't reason with them.

Who? Who's off-limits?

You want me to give you a definitive list when I'm telling you outright that it's a case by case issue. You want a general rule, but none exists. Nor does there need to be one. We could spend all day trying to formulate some ruleset to govern selection, but I don't think there's any point. There are exceptions to every system, and the more powerful a system you make, the more exceptions there are. Pain or force should be used when it's appropriate for them to be used. Let common sense govern when that is.

Ok, I've seen a demonstration using a Van de Graaff generator. You can touch it no problem, but your hair stands up.

That's static electricity, no current.

A power socket is a voltage generator, not a current generator. It will give off a constant voltage (constant with every plugged in appliance, not constant in time), but the current depends on the circumstances.
You can calculate the current very easily with Ohm's Law from the voltage. If we take the human body to have a roughly constant resistance, the current scales linearly with the voltage. So all you need to know for the lethality of a power socket is the voltage it provides. And this isn't enough to kill a human. If it were, we would have a lot more electric related deaths in the news.

Also, the current also burns. Or more specifically, the loss of kinetic energy in the current burns. Voltage is nothing more than potential energy. It doesn't kill you if you stand on top of a building, but a ball falling down from this building will hurt.

It's not an issue of whether or not it burns you to death. It takes only a few mA to stop a heart. Here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Will_elecrtic_shock_from_a_electrical_outlet_stop_the_heart