On Aug 17, 3:24 pm, Cynic  wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:54:36 -0700 (PDT), aquachimp
>
>  wrote:
> >However, I think you've not taken up the fullness of what I said . In
> >car terms, the 'optional extra' is a fuel additive that might in fact
> >be a con-job, because what I was saying is that if a child can turn
> >out bad without physical discipline and a child can turn out bad
> >with... then it is the bad parenting that is at fault and the presumed
> >value of the violence has being disproved.
>
> I have never claimed that physical punishment is some sort of magic
> elixer - like any tool used to aid in raising a child it can be used
> correctly or incorrectly, for benefit or disbenefit.
>
> >Apart from which, your suggesting the optional extra is matter of
> >convenience.
> >So is junk food. And perhaps parenting by convenience.
>
> It's more in the line with a box spanner or socket wrench.  You can do
> any job with other tools, and most of the time the other tools will be
> the best ones to use, but every now and again you get a job that is a
> heck of a lot easier if you use those rather than battling with
> something less suitable.
>
> >There is another thing I'd like to mention whilst I have the chance;
> >This thing about loving the child but not the actions of the child.
> >Lovely, I do understand it, but it's a tad rosy tinted.
> >Such things tend to be one tend to be one way streets.
> >"I am in love with Charlie even though he has a criminal record"
> >"I'm in love with Charlie, but I have a criminal record"
> >See the difference? (in terms of personal feelings)
>
> The person is the sum total of their actions I suppose.  A few bad
> actions do not impact a heck of a lot if the majority of things the
> person does are good.  But a single  bad act can swing the average the
> other way, as can a huge number of smaller bad actions.
>
> --
> Cynic