6424 Shares

So im working on this argument To basically kill any pro-corporal punishment argument ever made ever suggestions?

So im working on this argument To basically kill any pro-corporal punishment argument ever made ever suggestions? Topic: What is problem solving approach in teaching
June 16, 2019 / By Bonduca
Question: keep on right path, wont listen, I didn't beat my wife or I wasn't violent and listened more, they need discipline. A child isn't going to stop drawing on the wall because you sit him down and explain that he's hurting your feelings, and that not drawing on the walls is the least he can do given what you provide him. People who believe in spanking are usually the first ones to curse I mean a lot and they get very aggressive, confusion that spanking/whupping was the main factor, they think kids understand the Way to many different age variations. look at me I'm so perfect with my money and non abused girlfriend. counting/limits. developedand respect, social/public pressure. How you see results and the child never does that behavior again.(theres a right way to hit a child.oh I love this one what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, bring up researchers a lot, they legit don't know anything else, they think what they did as a child was so evil and wrong that they believe they deserved to be hit.They believe that its obvious that spankingthought them the lesson and nothing else would work, and because nothing else worked because spanking was "supposedly the only way to get them to listen" they wind up thinking they learned from it because they don't do it again and become more "respectful",Christianity. Kids,need to be taught the world doesn't revolve around them, or that they should learn about the "Real world". How kids are so bad these days. what am i missing any suggestions? It wont be a rant were i constantly call people idiots, it will be an actual detailed argument but thank you very much for the advice i was considering being a little rude or at least sarcastic. These answer's amuse me (in a good way) I think i know most of what i want to say now but still feel free to leave answers.
Best Answer

Best Answers: So im working on this argument To basically kill any pro-corporal punishment argument ever made ever suggestions?

Alanna Alanna | 2 days ago
First of all, for Star- I am speaking to you as a SURVIVOR of YEARS ( over a decade, in fact) of parental abuse, including more beatings and whippings than I care to count or remember. I was incredibly LUCKY to survive to adulthood, and the undeserved beatings and abuse didn't END until after I started COLLEGE at 18. My main abuser is dead now, thankfully, and can't hurt anyone any more. I did NOT DESERVE WHAT I WENT THROUGH, not one BIT OF IT. NO CHILD EVER DESERVES ABUSE. And spanking and physical punishments ARE ABUSE. Spanking teaches kids that HITTING PEOPLE is the way to solve a problem. It ALSO sends the message that VIOLENCE is acceptable and even a DESIRABLE thing. But worst of all, spanking and physical punishments are extremely HYPOCRITICAL. When parents and adult caregivers hit kids, they are taking a "do as I SAY but NOT as I DO" approach to discipline, and that never WORKS. The kids get a completely contradictory message- and the great majority of kids RESENT it, JUST AS THE ADULTS would if the situation were reversed and THEY WERE the ones on the receiving end of such treatment. Take a cue from training horses, Star. When trainers or handlers use violence towards a horse, one of two things always happens: Either they will make an EXISTING problem that much WORSE, OR they will CREATE A NEW PROBLEM where there wasn't one to begin with. A timid horse will become even more fearful; a highly mettled, or intelligent horse will inevitably turn VICIOUS. And the fate of vicious or aggressive horses, Star, is NOT A GOOD ONE. They tend to wind up in premature graves. The same can be said of dogs, too. And punishing an angry teenager in such a manner will NOT SOLVE whatever problem is going on. Instead, it will only make an angry kid even angrier. Kids who get punished physically WILL find ways to take their anger and resentment out on whoever and whatever is around them, which is another reason for avoiding such treatment, especially in a school setting. Paddlings and whippings can cause and contribute to BULLYING, too, because of this. Being punished physically also puts kids who may already be at risk for other reasons at risk for mental illness and suicidal behavior. I agree that children need discipline, but the way in which that discipline is administered should not involve violence or physical punishments. There are far better ways to solve problems.
👍 172 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? So im working on this argument To basically kill any pro-corporal punishment argument ever made ever suggestions? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: What is problem solving approach in teaching


Alanna Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
Agreed. Your logic is definitely sound. Though, I recommend you stop trying to contend with Theists, well most of them at least. They are young souls, and require such closed minded structure in their lives in order to operate. With out said structure, this world would be for more of a pain in the *** then it already is. Imagine introducing a school full of undisciplined toddlers into a Five Star Restaurant on its most important time of the year and whilst telling them their are Easter eggs to be found under ever table. Look up, not down. Below you is the confined structure of the heavy duty religions, you are beyond the point of requiring a tit to suckle on, and ready to explore the universe. Yes, we adapted to our universe, but the universe had an intention with it all. One must consider that if we are conscious, the universe could also possibly be conscious, though not necessarily in the manner we understand it in our current physical forms. Take a look at a picture of the known universe. Kind of similar to nerves or what have you in the brain. Just saying... All is possible, and all is happening at exactly the same time everywhere in the universe. Some just choose to call that "God" and limit there focus and understanding of what is around them to a very small circle they draw around themselves.
Alanna Originally Answered: Would you agree that this argument nullifies the teleological argument for gods existence?
The teleological argument proposes that existence of underlining ideas that permit for the existence of materialistic structure suggests the existence of a deliberate intent for the existence of material existence that it's going to serve some underlining reason or finish. Though it may be that this argument does have some merit there may be as of yet no sound and legitimate argument connecting it to any person faith or anthropomorphous deity of those religions. The cosmological argument is an argument for an uncaused purpose that initiated all causal forces. It does no longer straight assert that the uncaused rationale ought to be a certain deity. And it assumes that the perception of causality necessitates an uncaused cause. It was formulated extra so that you could restrict countless regress when discussing the existence of known reality. Neither argument is provided as proof of gods existence, but as an alternative as evidence that suggests that the inspiration of god is a philosophical possibility. Philosophically the arguments themselves can't in any cheap means (excluding circumstantial coincedence) be obvious as supporting any devout claims in the case of the character or intent of the possibly existent god. The arguments only serve to illustrate that the as a idea God could exist inside the context of unique definitions. The definition nevertheless would be in critical conflict with many fundamental devout connotations of the word god, as the arguments themselves attribute no anthropomorphic sympathy or traits to the term god as a proposal.

Trent Trent
First, start by learning basic composition. You won't convince anyone of anything with an unintelligible rant, like that.
👍 70 | 👎 -2

Reese Reese
All children need to be spanked. Its a good form of discipline and works and has never, ever caused a child to become retarded, has never caused to them to become aggressive or violent or anything.
👍 69 | 👎 -6

Reese Originally Answered: Need argument against Capital Punishment / Death Penalty in a perfect justice system?
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people. Your premise is that a perfect justice system is possible. However, human beings are fallible with the result that all human institutions are bound to get it wrong some of the time. The death penalty is no exception and its worst mistakes are totally irreversible and irremediable. Keeping killers off the streets for good: Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages: -an innocent person serving life can be released from prison -life without parole costs less than the death penalty Costs, a surprise to many people: Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison.The process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death. Crime reduction (deterrence): The death penalty doesn't keep us any safer that life sentences without parole. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. Who gets it: The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed?? Victims: People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative. It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.

If you have your own answer to the question what is problem solving approach in teaching, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.