Hitting your kids is parenting for amateurs or dummies. Anytime I catch myself with the urge to hit I remind myself I'm a lot smarter than those little shits (whom I love immensely) and its just a matter of calmly reminding them of their incentives, both negative and positive. The same holds true for yelling. I find that having them look in my eyes and speaking very quietly and calmly accomplishes a lot more. YMMV.
Kids better take their hits from their own family first. They get used to the violence in society later this way, and get stronger through the process. I'd like to see you vindicate your view that adults raised without "physical" education end up being better adults. The trends in society certainly don't seem to indicate your are right.
As long as it's not abusive, disproportionate, and done in the proper circumstances and for the right reasons, there's nothing wrong with that.
Please note I'm not advocating beating up your child for no reason whatsoever. It should be the last resort to educate. But just like the experience of fire is necessary to fear it, the experience of authority through a variety of means has value.
@larrys Make a list of your kid's 5 favorite things. Make hitting them the sixth option. Give them authority to choose between the bad behavior or losing the items sequentially. With most kids by the time you get to item three you have compliance. No hitting required. IMHO the key is letting them choose among consequences or to pursue the behavior. Gives them independence and boundries at the same time.
"Hitting your kids is parenting for amateurs or dummies."
That's very absolute a statement.
"matter of calmly reminding them of their incentives, both negative and positive."
As you said YMMV. Children are different from not only different families but within the same family. Punishment that works with one is pointless with another.
As kids we learned from that that resorting to violence is an instant loss of the fight, since even the adult would admit it. Not the worst lesson to teach, I believe.
However, for certain ages and situations, nothing gets the point across quite as succinctly or unambiguously as a sharp thwack or spanking.
I wouldn't, however, consider that as discipline per se--that is something that takes a larger, longer-term sort of environment and character building than fast "don't do that" punishment.
That is bad reasoning. Lots of things that you shouldn't do are effective, that doesn't make them any less wrong. That something works does not make it ok. The ends do not justify the means. It is no less wrong to hit your kid than to hit your spouse.
That something works does not make it ok. The ends do not justify the means.
Depends on whether you're consequentialist or deontologicalist, I guess. For a consequentialist, nothing can make something okay other than that it works, and ends are the only thing that can justify any means. :)
"It is no less wrong to hit your kid than to hit your spouse."
Presumably a spouse has more intelligence, maturity, and common sense than a child and is a peer (equal) that you can speak to and don't have to resort to "spanking" or much worse.
Unfortunately, police abuse is the coming standard. US schools in Texas, Florida, and other states are increasing buildup of cops in k-12 schools, along with the threat of arrest and deadly force by said cops.
Class C misdeameaners are handed out in extreme regularity, with the common punishment is a fine or community service. Seems to me it's an intersection between the prison companies and school companies.
It seems like they are trying to get kids used to have police guarding their every movements. So, when they grow up, it will seem pretty normal for them an increasing police state.
I actually am a licensed substitute teacher. And I've served plenty of time in Indiana schools.
Yeah, they do tend to get a wee bit rowdy, but I saw no violence or such in the classes I've been in. There has been the usual silliness like paper airplanes and such, but nothing that would get anybody hurt.
I've also learned that they are respectful if you respect them. Tit for tat, with the benefit of the doubt.
It just takes one or two people to take the idea of physical punishment too far before people start calling for change. In the 1970's in the USA teachers were allowed to hit students. I would like to see a teacher try that now.
I went to school back then, and the teachers weren't allowed to hit students. They could send you to the principal for corporal punishment, but his options were strictly circumscribed. His biggest weapon, in fact, was the threat of a paddling.
I can't say that's the way it was everywhere, but they didn't need to rely on that kind of thing - if you made too much trouble they would simply expel you, something I don't think happens these days.
My parents were both in schools where they were physically beat, their fellow students were physically beat, and physical violence was always on the table as a response to student behavior. Their resentment (and the feeling of betrayal by their parents who condoned this behavior) lives on to this day.
So yeah, I think your parent post was talking about public schools. I won't argue that physical punishment (and abuse in some places) was absent from Catholic schools, especially at that time. Missouri also seems to be home to much more conservative Catholics than I'm used to seeing in other parts of the country which may relate to why the teachers/administration behaved that way.
Which is why you need to be reminded that correlation isn't causation; just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is. You're just repeating a known fallacy.
It also doesn't preclude causation either. Lacking scientific data otherwise, it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that would certainly warrant investigation. All scientific theory starts with a hypothesis based on observation. Dismissing a hypothesis out of hand because you don't like the implication isn't valid science. We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well, even though I don't like the implications of CO2 regulation. However that approach is not consistent with the Scientific Method. Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
> it's a perfectly valid hypothesis that would certainly warrant investigation
No one said otherwise, but causation was suggested, and hence disputed.
> All scientific theory starts with
I require no science lessons from you.
> We could say that correlation doesn't imply causation with CO2 and the climate change debate as well
There are known causal effects of C02 on the atmosphere, it's physics, the science has moved far beyond merely trying to prove causal effects and well into trying to understand them.
> Until Science disproves a lack of causation of spanking and discipline, then it's just as valid a hypothesis as any other untested hypothesis.
No one put forth a hypothesis, you're arguing against your own straw-man.
I don't agree. I recognize that this is a difficult and controversial issue, but perhaps you would allow me to present a contrary opinion.
(Also, understand that this is a general response, not a response targeted only at gnaritas).
A few years ago, the New Zealand legislature passed a law that effectively made spanking a punishable offense(^), which generated a lot of discussion about the topic. About two-thirds of everyone I talked to (classmates, etc) had be spanked as a child, and of those people, I never met anyone who considered it a bad thing or traumatic in any way. In fact, everyone recognized that they had only been spanked because they were misbehaving, and that they had 'earned' the punishment. Let me emphasise that: I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.
From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse. Please understand that I am not defending any parent who abuses their child. Their actions are horrid and without excuse. Instead, my point is merely that spanking, done right, is not at all equivalent with child abuse.
So what makes a 'good' spank? It should be short, sharp, and clearly associated with the crime, not the person.
By short and sharp, I mean that it should hurt but I should not leave any long term effects. There should only be a single strike, the pain should not last longer than 10 seconds, and if there is a bruise then the parent has seriously stuffed up. The purpose is not to inflict pain on the child, but rather to clearly and unambiguously tell the child that certain actions are not acceptable. A baby should never be smacked, because they would not be able to understand the causality, and I would expect that once a child is over the age of 5 or 6, a verbal rebuke or simple smack on the hand should be sufficient. (Note that the smack on the hand would not be designed to cause pain, but rather to serve as a strong rebuke.)
The smack should be clearly associated with the crime, not the person. When my mother smacked me, she would call me into the bedroom, explain what the crime was, smack me once, then hold me as I cried. Also, she always told me that she still loved me.
Gnaritas: you say that the end does not justify the means. I'm not sure I agree with that. If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means. I suspect that the only people who can discipline themselves without any external discomfort (whether that's physical pain, boredom from being given a detention, or embarrassment from a boss's rebuke) are those who have been appropriately disciplined when they were young. Certainly, parents should move to the milder forms of punishment as soon as a child will respond to them. But while a child is young (3-5ish), a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
I recognize that some people will read this and still thing smacking is horrid. That's okay; you're certainly allowed to form your own opinion. However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent, or even that the children themselves resent it. I know I never did. I disliked the pain, but I knew that there was a very good was to avoid a smack -- stop being mean to others around me.
------
^ The purpose of the bill was only to remove a legal defense from those who were 'obviously' Bad Parents, but the ambiguity about what constitutes a Bad Parent made it very controversial.
> I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.
That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying; this is common among all kinds of abuse victims and is thus not a measure of whether something is or isn't abuse. Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.
> From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse.
I think you suspect wrong. People who object to violence are objecting to violence because they've reasoned out that it's wrong rather than accept what they were taught is acceptable violence from tradition as you seem to have.
> If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means.
And that's faulty reasoning. Lots of things that aren't OK work, that doesn't make them any more acceptable. The question isn't whether it works, the question is is violence the best option, and the answer is no; there is always a better non-violent method of teaching said lesson.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone, regardless of whether it leaves permanent marks, is violent.
> a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.
Whether a technique is effective or not has no relevance on whether it's wrong or not. By your reasoning, not feeding my kids for a few days (which won't do any permanent damage) is OK as a form of punishment if it works.
Hitting your child is no less wrong than hitting your spouse. You are engaging in rationalization, not logic.
> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent
Hitting someone is violent by definition. There is no assumption involved, it is violence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You may be of the opinion that sometimes violence (spanking) is OK, but you are not allowed your own facts.
> That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying;
Telling people you classify as abused that they are fully incapable of speaking for themselves unless they agree with you is pretty despicable, and a kissing cousin to victim blaming.
Well it's a good thing I didn't actually say that. I'll repeat... That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. That is a statement of fact, not opinion. It doesn't in any way say they are incapable of anything, it merely points out that victims don't always realize they are being victimized; this is especially true of children, as anyone should well know.
By stating that you believe spanking is never justified, it implies that, from your viewpoint, spanking is unjustified violence, aka abuse. If someone who has been spanked attempts to tell you that they do not believe they were abused, you have declared their motivation to be either rationalization or denial.
Further, when someone is debating whether or not spanking is "violent," they are speaking in the connotation of inflicting injury and harm. They do not mean it in the sense that force, such as beating an egg, is inherently violent.
I was spanked by my parents and by a grade school teacher. I think it functioned as suitable punishment in my case, and overall I was under-disciplined. Being told that I am inherently unreliable or unable to make the determination that I was abused or not is irritating and disrespectful.
I do believe current parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk (and perhaps tendency) of causing harm, and will avoid it as a method of discipline with my children.
Spanking is demonstrably not an effective way to discipline kids. There is no measurable correlation between whether a child is spanked, and a greater level of discipline or later life outcomes. Numerous research projects have shown that spanked kids do not behave any better, and several have seemed to suggest that kids who are spanked very frequently demonstrate greater aggression and more problems with discipline later in life.
I understand that because it involves our parents and our children, this is a subject that evokes strong emotional responses. But the objective research is very clear, which is why spanking and other physical punishments are no longer part of any professional educational or child-care profession in the U.S.
In the past few decades there have been significant advances in understanding how the human mind and brain develops during childhood. The results of these advances are taught in academia (i.e. a newly minted kindergarten teacher will likely have learned about them), but poorly disseminated to parents.
The essential thing to understand is that a child is not a human. They are in the process of becoming human. So when a child breaks a rule it is not the same thing as when you break a rule. It represents a step in their development that must be guided. So discipline is not about punishment, it is about teaching and coaching.
Did you not read where I stated that parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk of and tendency to cause harm? I also stated I would not be spanking my children as a result of the current understanding of its effects. Do you believe that means I am unable to express an opinion about spanking's specific effect on me?
I don't mean either/or exclusively, I mean could be. You cannot deny that some of the abused don't know they're being abused, especially in the case of children. That's the point I was trying to make and I don't think it's debatable.
There isn't just one definition of "violence" and the word is sometimes defined to include a malicious intent. Rarely would one say that a surgeon violently injures his patient when performing an operation or that the first responders administered violent CPR. Usually people project their own moral value judgements onto the word so that only what they deem as bad or evil acts are "violent". This is less a matter of fact than it is a matter of definition.
As for whether spanking is the most effective option, the jury is still out. It wouldn't be surprising to find a correlation between spanking and slightly lower IQ or later behavioral problems, but does spanking cause either? Can scientific literature that relies on self-reporting by parents show anything useful?
Regardless of effectiveness, should one spank? Is it morally wrong? What basis do we decide the morality of it?
It's wonderful that your anecdotes had such great parents that they spanked responsibly, but it's not the norm. Let's not kid ourselves: any physical act that sends a message more effectively than well-considered words is violent. I don't trust the average person to use violence responsibly.
Yes, let's give up the idea of civilization. It's just much easier to inflict violence as a means of discipline and control. That doesn't have any long term psychological or behavioral impact.
Hey kids, if you don't like what someone's doing, use violence. Wonder why the world's nations' military policies are the way they are?
Very interesting discussion.
I work on a 2D MMORPG for Android.
This is extremely relevant to me. I have a few questions though.
What if you take compression and deserialization out of the picture?
For example, in my server I have a hash like data structure that gets turned into JSON for browsers and byte array for mobile clients.
For example, because the data has to be transferred at fast rates and will be going over mobile networks. The size of the packet matters because every millisecond counts.
Then to read the data, I simply read the stream of bytes and build the objects I need on the client.
This has to happen mostly without allocations for example on Android to avoid the GC.
So a few questions:
Does deserializing JSON cause any memory allocations?
If you're not tokenizing the data and don't need to parse it, will it be a significant gain over s serialized byte protocol or JSON?
In any case, I'll experiment on my end and perhaps blog about my own findings.
Disclaimer: I'm authoer of MessagePack for C++/Ruby and committer of one for Java.
As for strings, JSON has to allocate memory and copy to deserialize strings because strings are escaped.
MessagePack does't have to allocate/copy because the serialized format of strings is same as the format in memory. But it depends on the implementation whether actually it doesn't allocate/copy.
C++ and Ruby implementations try to suppress allocation and copying (zero-copy). But Java implementation doesn't support zero-copy feature so far (we have plan to do so. Here is "TODO" comment: https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-java/blob/master/src/main...).
As for the other types, C++ implementation (and new Ruby implementation which is under development) has memory pool which optimizes those memory allocations petterns. But it's hard to implement such optimizations for Java because JVM (and Dalvik VM) doesn't allow to hook object allocation.
Interesting, thanks so much for the response.
I'll keep this in mind as I continue to develop my app. It's still between custom byte stream, json, thrift, etc.
But MsgPack looks interesting as well and, if anything, these blog posts have brought it into the light for me.
I looked at the java class and what might help is if you can set a buffer size and use that buffer to store the data in the buffer and expand it if necessary. But that seems like a lot of work.
But yeah, not sure if you can optimize based on usage patterns due to the constraint you said.
In any case, great stuff and thanks for the info.
I don't know, I'm pretty bothered by this. I checked Google Play the day I purchased it and it was only available w/ a contract.
That's why when I saw it at Fry's I bought it because it was unlocked. Should have waited two more days and gotten it at half price. In any case, I'm going to go complain to them about this. I believe they offer price matching.
They definitely do, I don't know if they offer price guaranteeing though. (matching is before the fact, guarantee is after). At any rate, you'll definitely be able to return it as a worst case scenario.
Indeed, it looks like they're even using requestAnimationFrame.
It's still really slow on Firefox, which I've found to be one of the worst offenders when making canvas games.
The problem here might be fixed by splitting the physics loop from the animation loop.
I think it's doing all the calculations as fast as it draws.
That's really surprising to me. Whenever I tried Perl it always turned into a painful mess. When I started using Ruby I felt it was the best of Perl and the best of ... Smalltalk I suppose — and I never looked back.
Freaking amazing, I've been utilizing MVC heavily to develop HTML5 games. Mainly borrowing ideas from Android and iPhone development with their layout engines and staying out of the way as much as possible.
Now that's the extreme, but this whole don't hit your kids movement is an epidemic.