Jorsay
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Jorsay
-
-
As a child, I was beaten with a belt on a regular basis. Beaten - leaving welts, bruises, and cuts. For everything, from lying (usually to avoid being beaten) to simply saying the wrong thing. I lived in terror of the next "whipping." I even ran away multiple times to avoid whippings (and put myself in some dangerous sitautionsand got worse whippings when I got home.) I was so glad when my dad divorced her - I CHEERED even though she had been my "mother" for 7 years.
I do spank my children when the situation warrants it, but rarely (and not even all my dc get spanked.) I would never, never, ever, ever use a belt and I would never, never, ever, ever spank a child with the intent to "leave a mark."
OK, OK, I agree, spanking with the intent to leave a mark is extreme and I am not in favor of it.
-
The other person advocated a belt and being sure it leaves a mark. I have a notion they didn't mean they were tapped lightly with a belt. Being hit with a belt is pelting, banging and beating. Would you let me hit you with a belt? Or would you charge me with assault? To call hitting someone with a belt a "method of discipline" is like calling starving a person "dietary control".
We disagree. If my Mom hadn't used a belt on me, I would have laughed at her when she tried to spank me. It certainly would have hurt her hand more than my bottom. By the way, I did not charge her with assualt.
Actually, I am in favor of whipping with a cane or belt when certain laws are broken. If I were running away with your lawn chairs and you whipped me with a belt, I wouldn't be particularly upset about it. I certainly wouldn't charge you with assualt.
-
Spanking incites fear, and terror.
That's why it works.
-
Why? Banging a kid with a belt is wrong! Would it be fine for a man to beat his wife with a belt? Are you okay with that? Why would it be fine if it's a child? A good person does not justify beating other people with a belt, particularly a child. I *love* it when someone says, "I was beaten and I turned out fine, so it's fine to beat someone with a belt." Huh? If you think it's fine to beat someone with a belt, I submit you didn't turn out fine!
In order to make your point, it seems necessary for you to change the words of the other person. Such a method seems intellectually dishonest to me. No one suggests "Banging, pelting, hitting, or beating" with a belt. I believe that all advocators said "spanking". Your words imply intentional and repeated brutality as opposed to a method of discipline. Do you believe that is the intent of these parents or don't you believe that intent is important?
By the way, I asked my wife and she said she wouldn't mind me giving her a good spanking once in a while ;), but if I hit her she would call the police. Apparently words do have meaning to some. (If this comment offends anyone, I will remove it immediately.)
-
It is tragic, but I say it's their own business. I don't want anyone coming into my home and taking away my kids' bearded dragons because they may give them salmonella or filling in our pool because they are afraid my kids will drown. Therefore, I don't want the right to decide what's dangerous for their kid. I also don't want the government to have the right to prosecute them. Just like I don't want to be prosecuted if my kid dies from salmonella or accidently drowns.
-
So there was absolutely nothing else, nada, under the sun that your parents could have done except use corporal punishment that would have resulted in a moral, upstanding adult?
I still find it sad that you believe that humans have to be physically struck and inflicted with pain to grow into moral adults; that there is no other way for some children. I have no example in my life that proves this to be true. In fact, I know personally a couple very hard headed, willful children that were not spanked and grew into pleasant, law abiding citizens. So although it can obviously work, it is not the only way.
Putting that all aside - since we will never agree - I'm pleased to see the honor and respect you give your parents. I feel the same way about mine. I try to remember to give thanks for the wonderful, moral, hardworking parents I had. They had high standards, and we lived up to those standards. Without ever receiving a spanking.
Oh well, these threads are really dead ends. I won't change, you won't change. It's all okay.
Janet
Your first question assumes that there is something wrong with spanky. I honestly feel that it is good for them. I am glad that I was spanked. I learned from it. I learned about discipline, physical pain, emotions, and all kinds of other things. The first (and only) time I was yanked out of my car and shoved around by a couple of policeman, it wasn't a complete shock. I understood that sometimes life is physical. I was able to deal with it by staying calm and without fighting back. Had I never been physically punished, perhaps I would not have handled it so well.
Spanking is a good thing. Spanking has important lessons. I do not say that you have to spank your child to be a good parent, but I believe that it is good for your child.
BTW: The cops profiled me as a drug dealer. Incorrectly of course.
-
Oh, I hope you're able to get out. I love SLO and the weather's always perfect over there.
There's a great toy store over in SLO called Tom's. You should check it out.
-
Hey Janet:-)
I actually propose the idea that some Adults could use a good caning. I watched, I think in Singapore??...where a r*pist was talking about being caned. He said every time he thought of r*ping a woman that his entire body felt pain. That may make our society safer....
Oh well, just thinking...
Carrie
:iagree:
-
I would LOVE to see one of them spank another.:lol:
Having thought about it, I don't teach my kids that hitting is wrong. I tell my kids that they should only use violence as a last resort, but I do leave it as a last resort.
I guess we disagree even more than previous thought ;)
:iagree:
UFC Couture vs ortiz. It was very funny.
-
As an adult who was spanked as a child, I can tell you that connotation meant nothing to me.
I was being hit. Period.
Then I would guess that you have never been hit because there is a difference. For instance, spanking in the UFC is generally not as effctive as hitting.
-
I think it is disingenuous to say hitting and spanking are the same thing. Clearly hitting and spanking have different conotations. Spanking may be hitting, but hitting is not necessarily spanking. Spanking is a form of punishment, striking on the bottom without causing permanent physical damage. Hitting includes striking with malice anywhere on the body possibly resulting in unconsciousness, blood, broken bones, etc... I don't think anyone here would advocate corporal punishment beyond spanking.
Some kids require spanking. If you have never spanked your child and your child is well behaved, then you are lucky.
A smart child will often weigh out the rewards of the crime versus the the possibility of getting caught and the punishment. If the punishment has no physical pain, some children are comfortable taking the risk. However, physical pain is more difficult to calculate into the equation. The same child that takes the risk when unaccompanied by spanking can be dissuaded by fear if he/she knows the punishment may include this immeasurable factor known as pain.
Some kids are too young to reason with, or the reason may be too complicated to be easily understood. In such a case, spanking may be appropriate.
Additionally, some parents are willing to tolerate a certain amount of bad behavior that others will not. Unfortunately for the rest of us, some of those same parents seem to think that the general public should tolerate their kids bad behavior as well.
Some kids require spanking. If you have never spanked your child and your child is well behaved, then you are lucky. I have eight kids, some require spanking and some do not.
Of course in the backwaters of the south they beat their kids just to pass the time of day.:boxing_smiley:
-
Nice try but that's circular logic, not an explanation. :D
Labeling something as "Circular Logic" (albeit incorrectly) doesn't change my argument. You said the law doesn't answer why or how. That is exactly what it answers. The question is "Why doesn't the earth stop spinning." The answer is "because an object remains in its present state of motion; because it follows the laws of physics". If not, what answer would you propose? The same goes for the question and answer as to 'How'. It is the inductive nature of science that it provides answers that are based upon theories and laws arrived at through observation.
-
I can understand that you disagree with me, but it's difficult to have a coherent discussion with people who disagree with themselves. If you think that your statements are supported by the words of the National Academy, maybe you should reread your posts.
see post #265
-
Jorsay, I have enjoyed your contributions, as it seems to me that they are balanced rather than driving an agenda.
Thank you. I like these discussions, but I am always a little concerned that I may convince someone of something important like a religious belief. That would be bad, since I have learned that I am wrong about things (not typically science things though) about 50% of the time.:)
-
I can understand that you disagree with me, but it's difficult to have a coherent discussion with people who disagree with themselves. If you think that your statements are supported by the words of the National Academy, maybe you should reread your posts.
You'll have to explain more closely. I still think my statements agree with the statement you posted.
-
No.
That's simply a description of the observation. That in no way explains the why or how of the matter.
Question: "Why doesn't the earth stop spinning?"
Answer: "Because an object will remain in its present state of motion unless acted upon by a force."
Question: "How can the earth's motion be changed?"
Answer: "By having a force act upon it."
I guess it does explain the why and how. :)
The Law of of Gravity is that objects of mass attract one another and we know that because of observational data. The Theory of Gravity, well, we don't even have a really good one yet or rather we have a few and no real consensus has emerged over which one is likely the right one. We're not exactly sure how it works, we just know it does work. But stating it works does not a explain or describe how it works.I disagree. We understand gravity quite well. The law tells us a lot more than that objects attract each other. The theory or law tells us 'how' they attract each other. i.e. the force is attractive, not repulsive, the force is inversely related to the square of the distance between the objects, the force is proportional to the mass. The force is universal throughout nature, the force cannot be screened or blocked like other forces, etc...
Actually, General Relativity makes the theory of gravity and it's laws completely obsolete. Simply speaking: According to general relativity, objects move along a straight path as defined by curved space. Mass curves space creating an apparent change in the object's motion. In fact, without this theory, we could not make our cell phones work.
-
Religion has its faults too and is not the cure of all evils, without it, Manhattan would still have the same skyline...
Jorsay, if you'll read one of my other posts, you'll see I said I don't like to throw around the term "fact" loosely, as do any other scientists. People should always refine and search for answers, building upon theories, or in case of evidence, starting over. I'm not arguing with you there. Evolution is already thoroughly supported by evidence, so I doubt scientists will throw the whole evolution theory out. Do we agree on that?
We agree. But it should be noted that it has been substantially modified since Darwin.
-
Please read closely:
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them.
Why do they use the word likely? Perhaps to provide for the circumstance where new evidence (i.e. facts) can and does alter them. No? Why didn't they say "no new evidance can alter them"? Is it because a new fact may alter a theory? Wouldn't that mean that a fact carries more weight than a theory?
The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Does anyone think this says "a theory is a fact" or "a theory holds more weight than a fact." Does this imply that a new fact that contradicts a theory would be ignored in favor of the theory? Or does it imply that should a fact be discovered that contradicts a theory, the theory may be changed? If the latter, doesn't that mean that a fact carries more weight than a theory?
-
The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.
Yes, it may be as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter, which as I have shown earlier, is not factual at all. Like all science, it is what many believe to be the best currently available paradigm of nature.
The same goes for "the germ theory of disease" except that, in my opinion, this has been a little better established.
I believe in evolution; I do not believe in creationism, but evolution is simply not fact. Science makes no such claim. Evolution is theory.
-
From Wikipedia:
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
This is very close to correct, and supports what I have stated. However, the last statement must be read carefully. "Reliable" here can only mean useful for manipulating and making predictions of nature. It would be incorrect to replace the word 'reliable' iwth the word "exact".
Remember also that thousands of theories have been falsified, including evolution, and thus had to be discarded or modified.
-
That's simply not so. It's a very common misconception (in general, not simply amongst creationists or IDers) that theories are laws that just haven't been proven or don't have enough support yet but it's wrong. If you encounter a text that claims a law is nothing more then a tested theory then it's a good sign that the text should be filed in the garbage.
I wrote a blog post about this awhile ago and I'll just reproduce that post here (although it's worth checking out the original as the comments were great - I even had an evolutionary biologist comment). Just before that I'll make a point. Tthe first quote in the post makes it clear that what constitutes a law depends on consensus in the scientific community. That means that if you're pushing a definition that most of the scientific community disagrees with then it doesn't and can't work. On to my post;
The difference between a law and a theory in science really needs to be cleared up. Its causing, as my Thomas the Tank Engine-obsessed son would say, confusion and delay in my blog comments. Let's explore.
I found this very nice entry at the MadSci Network in which Dan Berger offers this:
This is not, "a simplistic, hierarchical view of the relationship between theories and laws whereby theories become laws depending on the availibility of supporting evidence." (from the same site)
If you're an auditory learner and need a nice, simple explanation try this page, scroll to the bottom and click on, "To hear this program click here." From the transcript:
D: Well, the definition of a law is easy. It's a description--usually mathematical--of some aspect of the natural world.
Interesting.
Here's a fun page from high school chemistry teacher, David Dice -Proof and Science. This page isn't simply valuable for the person who doesn't understand the difference between theory and law but also for those of us who tend to talk of evolution being 'true'.
Maybe those of us who accept the theory of evolution need to tidy up our terms too. The site is an excellent read, generally agrees with the definitions from the MadSci Network and has a quiz. Kudos Mr. Dice!
Let's hear from Ronald Matson, Professor of Biology at Kennesaw State University but instead of his definition of laws and theories (you can guess by now what at least one of his definitions will be), let's hear what he has to stay about what laws and theories most definitely are not:
I hope this clears the matter up somewhat. A theory is not a baby law. A law is not a theory that's been proven. Next time you're discussing the matter with someone defending the theory of evolution you will know that you simply can't, with any honesty, claim evolution is a theory because it's unproven. Next time you're discussing the matter with a creationist you will know that when you insist evolution is the truth, you're using inexcusably sloppy language.
I disagree with the quotes that you have mentioned.
The first quote makes a somewhat artifical distinction between Laws and theories, as if Laws just popped up from out of no where. As the author admits, "(Laws) pertain to observational data" and "Theories are explanations of observations". A law, "such as An object tends to remain in its present state of motion unless acted upon by a force" is an explanation or description of nature. Is it not? By this definition it would be a thoery, no? It was, perhaps, first observed by Newton at which time he formulated an hypothesis or theory and proceeded to test it. When published, the scientific community then tested it. Or would you propose that he didn't need to test it because it came to him as a law? This is clearly a theory becoming a law. The author of the statement is incorrect.
There are many 'experts' in all fields. And within a field, they do not all agree. I have found that the average college professor of science, although perhaps an expert in his/her specialized area, is far from being an expert at basic science and they often understand it less well than my own students. I am not calling them dumb. I am simply saying that they sometimes are seen as experts on topics in which they are not. In this case, I would argue that your experts are making an artificial and incorrect distinction between Law and theory.
-
I agree with Kai here.
Scientists hold theories as highest. They go in this order:
Most Important
- Theories
- Laws
- Hypotheses
- Facts
Least Important
The average person thinks it goes like this: Facts, Laws, Theories, Hypothesis. If you were to study science, you'd go by the first list.
Angela,
I have studied science. In fact, I have written several science books.
I disagree. Why would a theory be more accepted than a law. Why did Newtons Laws like all laws of science, begin as hypotheses, progress to theories, and finally to Laws, only to be shown to be inaccurate by the facts?
-
Science is a tool to describe, explain, and manipulate nature. It does not reveal the 'truth'. Instead it offers analogies and pictures to describe, explain, and manipulate.
Imagine a hydrogen atom: a spherical ball with a positive charge called a proton with a much smaller particle spinning haphazardly around it. No reputable chemist or physicist would argue that, if we had a powerful enough microscope, that's what we would see. Afterall, an electron is as much a wave as a particle and it jumps instantaneously from one energy level (distance from the proton) to another. This is like magic! It is unexplanable and incomprehensible with classical mechanics, and only unerstood mathematically. It cannot be represented with a diagram. And what does positive charge mean? Any good textbook will tell you that charge is an undefined term.
Yet, this model, despite being inaccurate, is quite useful in making predictions about how hydrogen will behave.
This is why it is so important to understand that evolution is science and creationism is religion. The two are not even mutually exclusive. Evolution is a tool. It is a scientific description of nature, and like any scientific description of nature, it is inaccurate to some degree. However, as science, it is also valuable for making predictions for the future and manipulating nature. Creationism is a story. Unlike Evolution, Creationism does not hold any value as a tool for making predictions or manipulating nature. It is not science. However, like evolution, creationism is a description and explanation of what happened in the past. It may be more or less accurate than evolution as a description. Science does not claim to be the 'truth'.
-
OK, you are correct! I don't! ;)
As I stated previously, no theory about what happened in the past is either provable or falsifiable. Period.
Provable, No. Falsifiable, yes.
Let's look at two completely hypothetical possibilities:1) We demonstrate in the laboratory using a modified Miller's experiment that we can grow people just like us from some primordial slime. It happens quickly, right before our eyes and scientists around the world can duplicate this experiment. In this case, such an experiment would provide evidence that life *could have* arisen in such a manner and would be strong evidence that it did happen that way. However, there is no way to know that it DID happen that way. In other words, it does not rule all other possible explanations, as there are an infinite number of them.
Agreed. No theory based upon inductive reasoning can be proved. However, I disagree with your next point which is the most important point about scientific progression.
2) We demonstrate in the laboratory that the genome of all life forms are completely immutable, rendering Darwin's theory false in our current conditions. This, in no way, falsifies the theory. It brings strong evidence against it, but there is no way to prove that we have tested in the actual conditions that existed or even that perhaps evolution worked in the past but has stopped working today.Here's where we disagree. Your hypothetical experiment does falsify the theory of evolution. The theory would have to be abandoned or modified.
Science progresses via induction. Observations are made, questions asked, hypothesis is formed then tested, theory is formed. This is an inductive process; you notice that things always seem to happen in a certain way. If we find just one instance that they happen in a contrary fashion, the hypothesis or theory is falsified. The problem in proving such a theory is that no matter how many times you observe the action, perhaps, just maybe, if we do the experiment just one more time, something different will happen. The theory cannot be proven.
Is this autism?
in The Learning Challenges Board
Posted
My wife, who is not an expert, but has been amazingly accurate in my opinion in spotting autism, says it is autism.
We have four that were diagnosed. One has been de-diagnosed, one is very mild, and the other two are living good lives. There is a lot of community support. Don't be shy about searching it out.