-
- Research Officer (Trade and Economic)
- Australian Embassy / オーストラリア大使館, 東京都
- Salary: 月給 51万9167円 ~ 51万9167円
-
- ERP Consultant, System Engineer
- Nakamoto & Associates, 東京都
- Salary: 月給 25万円 ~ 70万円 相談可 インターンシップ
-
- Restaurant Service Attendant
- Mandarin Oriental, Tokyo - マンダリン オリエンタル東京, 東京都
- Salary: 給与についての記載なし
-
- In Room Dining Ordertaker
- Mandarin Oriental, Tokyo - マンダリン オリエンタル東京, 東京都
- Salary: 給与についての記載なし
-
- Housekeeping Coordinator
- Mandarin Oriental, Tokyo - マンダリン オリエンタル東京, 東京都
- Salary: 給与についての記載なし
0
Triumvere
Forgetting about Khamenei, are we some14some?
Posted in: Rowhani win revives sidelined Iranian reformists
1
Triumvere
The point was made, a rather good one I think, that the SDF needs to be capable of of amphibious assault in order to properly defend Japanese territory. If an island is invaded, the SDF may very well need such capabilities to take it back. The idea that you are going to have a military force for defense , but configure it in such a way that it is incapable of attack is really not a feasible one. Whether having such a force conflicts with the constitution is a different question.
Posted in: U.S. Marines land Osprey aircraft on Japanese naval vessel
-1
Triumvere
Um, you did notice that's she's intentionally dressed up as Rika-chan? (And triple color change Rika-chan at that.) She's literally supposed to look like a doll. Because she is promoting a literal doll.
Posted in: Toy story
0
Triumvere
Well, can you link to "the international numbers" so we can better understand what you are talking about? Regardless, you'd still want to adjust for population no matter were the actual procedures were being performed, wouldn't you?
Posted in: Girls, girls, girls
1
Triumvere
Great minds think alike, as they say, USNinJapan2. And with 39 nine dreams being fulfilled...
Posted in: Ordinary man's dream of acting with Jackie Chan realized in Kirin beer’s latest commercial
-2
Triumvere
I have noticed that K-pop groups tend to be much more "professional," for lack of a better term, than their J-pop counterparts.
Posted in: Girls, girls, girls
-1
Triumvere
I understood you perfectly. Read what I wrote again.
The point is that spanking at best does not work, and at worst is harmful.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
0
Triumvere
But you weren't proposing to ignore the child. You were proposing not to punish the child, but to provide her with attention to remedy this underlying issue. So you are "showering her with attention" either way... just with out any sort of negative consequences - forget spanking - because you seem to regard a punishment for biting as somehow unjust.
Look, I've said what I came here to say, and this doesn't look like this is going anywhere... I just want to part by saying, I have enormous respect for what you are doing - raising what I assume to be well adjusted children without corporal punishment. That's ideal. I just don't see spanking as some sort of categorical immoral action, and if a parent determines that a spanking is necessary and proper, then it should be an option that is open to them.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
1
Triumvere
Isn't any sort of punishment - no need to single out spanking - going to potentially have the confirming effect you mention? I take it you would agree, given that you don't see a punishment as warranted... but if there is no punishment, don't you essentially run the risk of reinforcing the idea that bad behavior - in this case egregiously bad behavior - is an effective tool for dealing with problems? I mean, child bites baby, and then suddenly child is showered in attention - the very thing the child was looking for in the first place. Any reasonable long-term solution is going to involve the parents devoting more time and effort to dealing with the older child. So, sans punishment, you've essentially turned biting into a winning strategy. I'm not sure why that particular lesson is an any less obvious/likely take-away than "the Gran hit me proving nobody loves me" take-away you have proposed.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
0
Triumvere
This is great.
Posted in: Education ministry to change college entrance exam system
0
Triumvere
Cleo,
My point is there is nothing stopping you from punishing the child's action AND addressing the underlying problem. Spanking can be combined with other measures to address the situation. That includes both the child's actions and the issue that caused them. If your point is spanking alone will not adequately solve this, then I agree. In contrast, merely dealing with the underlying problem - and not addressing the biting behavior - seems like an extraordinarily bad idea, no matter how much of the underlying issue was due to parental shortcomings. Surely you don't mean to suggest that there be no consequences for this action?
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
0
Triumvere
Are punishment and deterrence mutually exclusive?
It did not address the underlying problem, no. But how likely is the girl to repeat that particular response to the problem I wonder? Or to use biting to deal with a future, unrelated problem? If the answer is less likely, then I think the punishment did its job.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
6
Triumvere
Some thoughts:
1) The school system in the US isn't standardized, so visiting a single school is not really going to give you much insight into what "American school lunches" are like.
2) That said, most of the school lunches I got over the years at various institution were mediocre to poor. There were occasional bright spots (Friday is pizza day!). I'm not sure any of it was particularly healthy. I'm reminded of the story of a kid who got scurvy despite drinking school orange juice for breakfast everyday. The punchline was something about them melting the frozen orange juice concentrate in the dishwasher to save time or some such - the extreme heat destroyed the nutritional content of the OJ, apparently.
3) What it ultimately comes down to is money. You want better food? You want healthier food that is edible? You have to pay for that food and for competent people to prepare it. A tall order when your school system is strapped for cash and desperately needs new text books.
4) Brown bag it. Seriously, that's what most kids did anyway. And we didn't have fancy bento boxes, either.
Posted in: Encounter with an American school lunch
1
Triumvere
Actually, I'm not. I'm merely discussing spanking as a possible corrective tool. I didn't say anything about the proactive side of parenting. You are completely right that parents should do their utmost to ensure that children are properly supported and that problems are anticipated and dealt with before there is any need for punishment. The problems is, I don't share your iron confidence that A) everyone can be a perfect parent all the time, anticipating and solving every problem before it becomes such, and B) that even a "perfect parent" will necessarily be able to control every child. I can't imagine raising a child such that there is never a need for punishment of any sort whatsoever. Children are people, and people occasionally do things the shouldn't and know they shouldn't. You can't honestly say that every one of those instances is necessarily a "failure" on the part of the parents. You are creating a sort of impossible standard for parents to live up to, the worst part being even if they live up to it they won't necessarily be able to ensure their kid is 100% well behaved all the time. Once you accept that kids will likely need punishment at some point in time, then you open the door to the possibility that the punishment they might need is a spanking.
Again, I don't necessarily see every bad action by a child as necessarily being a "failure" on the part of the parents, but lets assume that there parenting mistakes have a significant role in promoting bad behavior on the part of children. That's a pretty well accepted. Also, parents being human tend to make mistakes. Furthermore, external demands (time & money, etc...) may mean that parents cannot always do what is optimal for a child. So, you get an incident where a child behaves badly, in which the parent's behavior is a contributing factor. You have a moral objection to spanking the child in this instance, because the parent is partially at fault. A few thoughts: as I mentioned before, I don't really view spanking as an immoral activity. The question is how efficiently it does the job. You could, I suppose view punishment as punishment for its own sake, a sort of moral balancing out if you would. I'm not really looking at it that way - for me, its about deterrence: the idea is to create a consequence such that A) the idea of the action being wrong is reinforced, and B) the threat of the consequence being incurred for future bad behavior is established and maintained. The goal is deterrence, as it would be with any other punishment. If at any point it becomes clear that a method of punishment is not having the desired deterrent effect, then that method should be abandoned in favor of a more effective method." There is no point spanking your kid if it isn't doing anything to correct the problem. So the real question for me isn't "How much of this my fault and am I punishing my kid for something which I had a hand in causing?t" but "something bad has occurred, now how do fix it/ensure that it doesn't happen again?" If punishment helps to that end, then I will employ punishment as apart of the solution. If you want to get at the moral aspect, then I will say this: ultimately we are independent beings. We have free will. I believe that. Even children. Children are taught right from wrong, and they internalize that. They often know when they are doing something which is wrong to do. When you do something you know to be wrong, you open up the possibility of punishment (note: possibility rather than necessity). Again, the central issue here - the one we are not going to see eye to eye on - is that I don't see spanking as some sort of ultimate evil to be avoided at all costs. While it has some inherent negatives, it is ultimately just a tool - to be employed where it will be effective. Now, let me address what I see as the real problem in the scenario you are evoking: you have a situation where a child behaves badly; badly enough to warrant as spanking (as determined by the parent taking future deterrence into account). However, the underlying situation causing the bad behavior is ongoing, and has its roots in some sort of parental shortcoming. In such a situation, the bad behavior is likely to reoccur because the underlying problem is not solved. In this sort of situation, continuing to spank the child for each successive offence is improper, because it isn't having the desired deterrent effect. You need to fix the underlying problem. The initial spanking, however, still has value in setting boundaries and expectations for behavior and its consequences. Basically there are two issues , the underlying problem and the child's response to that problem. The child has control over the second, but not the first. Punishment may help to alter the response behavior. The biting girl mentioned above is a good example. You are correct in that the parents have failed to properly prepare the girl for arrival of a new sibling. However, this is where your analysis falls off. There parents don't have a time machine. They can't go back in time to fix the mistakes they made. They can only attempt to do so moving forward. That still leaves us with the problem of the initial biting incident. Biting your baby brother (or anybody, for that matter) is wrong, and the child needs to learn that. (This particular case is pretty easy to justify, as the biting - and thus trauma to the infant is ongoing, demanding a rapid response. But lets ignore that for the moment). This seems like a rather good example of the appropriate use for spanking: the child is young enough that spanking is likely to be effective, and that alternate forms of punishment (such as reasoning) are not. The child's behavior is extreme, necessitating a strong response. The child is inflicting physical pain on another, and a physical consequence is a clear and simple way to demonstrate both that such action is wrong and why it is wrong. This is not to say that spanking is the only possible solution, but rather it is likely to be the *most effective solution in the immediate sense. You are, of course, totally correct that spanking alone is unlikely to solve the problem; if all the parents are doing in response is to spank the child, but not making any attempt to change the situation, than spanking is futile.
First off, I don't believe this is necessarily true on an individual level. Secondly, I'm not advocating "spanking as a last resort" so much as a cost/benefit approach. I don't really believe that spanking should be avoided unless "absolutely necessary" - I'll agree with you that its going to (almost) never be "necessary" in the strictest sense. Rather, it think that in situations of extreme behavior that it might be the most efficient tool to deal with that behavior in the immediate. I don't think spanking is a viable "long term" solution - its not going to solve the underlying problems which cause bad behavior, as we discussed, and therefor is in and of itself insufficient to deal with those problems. That doesn't stop it from being potentially useful in dealing with the behavior itself, however.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
-2
Triumvere
To borrow a phrase you used earlier, I think its an "admission of failure" as a parent if you are relying on spanking, or corporal punishment as a regular means of discipline. I tend to see spanking as a "last resort" sort of measure, for especially bad or out of control behavior. Or, especially for very young children, a quick response to dangerous behavior. Spanking should be mild, not done in anger, open hand on bottom - never, ever with an object. I wouldn't spank a child past, say, 5 or 6 or so. I think that the sort of mild spanking I am advocating would work much beyond that (I remember the last time I was spanked - I was thinking: "is this it? what was I so afraid of this doesn't even hurt... quick, pretend that it does so they won't figure out this isn't working anymore!" Plus, you should be able to adequately reason with, or otherwise deal with an unruly child by then. Ideally, you'd only spank your kid two or three times total, but have the threat of spanking as a kind of ultimate disciplinary action. Scratch that, ideally you'd never have to spank your kid at all, but I'm not sure that's feasible for every child. I think its great that you managed to more or less pull this off, and I agree pursuing non-corporal methods of punishment. However, I'm not sure I'm ready to give up on the idea of having physical punishment as a backstop, in case its necessary. I can already hear you thinking "its never necessary" but I'm not convinced that's true.
Perhaps necessary is the wrong word. Anyone can raise a child without any sort of corporal punishment. From my perspective, the real question is where do the benefits of spanking out way the detriments. Not an easy question, and one that will be different for every child - and every parent. Spanking is a sort of "necessary evil" I think, in some situations. I think the point where non-spankers and I part ways is a metaphysical done: non-spankers seem to see "violence" as a sort of moral or physiological threshold, the crossing of which does untold karmic damage: e.g., spanking teaches the kid to use violence to solve problems, damages their self-esteem, destroys the bond of trust between parent and child, etc... Essentially, corporal punishment is a sin. Personally, I don't see things that way. I'm skeptical of the psychological claims, provided the "spanking" were are talking about is the of sort I outlined above (again, beating your kid with a belt every other night is a very different story). I'm approaching things from a pure cost-benefit analysis: what tools do I have to solve the problem, and which ones are best for what situation; what is the trade off between harm to the child, and future harm prevented? Answers like "spanking never works no matter what" and "there is always a better way" are far too dogmatic, in my opinion. If you believe there is a better option as a parent in any given situation, then by all means take it. It's conceivable to me that in some cases there could be worse options...
I'm pretty comfortable with this position, and am unlikely to change it anytime soon. The question I am interested in, and what I think we should really be asking ourselves is the following: in any given society that allows corporal punishment of children, there are going to be some who apply it responsibly and some that don't. There are unquestionably millions of children out there who have be traumatized by physical abuse in the guise of discipline, intentionally or otherwise. So the real question, is does the net gain a society revives by banning corporal punishment exceed the net loss in utility (and you can add in parental autonomy concerns here) from losing corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool. Or, to put it another way, how many children (and future adults) are spared the effects of abuse vs. how many family lives are unduly strained by (you can add in raising spoiled children concerns here). You will of course, always have some that physically abuse their children anyway, but that shouldn't alter the calculation. Before you come back with a reflex response take some time to consider the following: how much damage (mental, as opposed to physical) will the replacement methods of punishment cause? Will there be a net decrease in the amount of discipline? And, how may otherwise good parents will get in trouble with Child Protective Services because of such a ban? (At the extreme, removing a child from a household where a parent uses corporal punishment may be worse for that child then simply allowing the corporal punishment to take place). No easy answers here, but a hell of a lot more interesting question than: "Is spanking bad?" I hope you'll agree.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
2
Triumvere
You know, having been spanked myself, I can't really imagine this. Because I never felt anything remotely like it. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it's hardly a necessary consequence.
I heartily agree. Pursue alternate methods. I'm just not sure we need to attach an enormous stigma to the act of spanking if performed in a responsible manner. I appreciate your explicit attempt to avoid doing so.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
0
Triumvere
Eh. The "US-China" relationship is pretty adversarial, and unlikely to change all that much any time soon. You may have been saying this sort of thing "for a long time," but the prophesied abandonment of Japan by the US has yet to happen.
Posted in: In a new U.S.-China relationship it is inevitable that Japan will be marginalized and essentially neutralized.
0
Triumvere
Sadly...
It's extreme in that it is literally at the extremity: on a scale of 0 to 100, you are at 0. You can't go less than that. I didn't mean to imply that non-spankers were somehow "extreme" in the sense of "beyond the pale." I'm sorry if gave that impression.
That doesn't follow logically. (See: Yabits above). Also, it makes the same sort of assumption I mentioned above. There might be different degrees of corporal punishments, some acceptable, some not. Also, you noted yourself that some sorts of non-corporal punishment might actually be worse: emotional manipulation can potentially lead to emotional scarring. There might be some non-corporal methods which, while still acceptable, are actually a better candidate for "last resort" than a spanking.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
0
Triumvere
I'd like to challenge this assertion.
It seems like a simple, intuitive consequence on its face, but it makes a lot of assumptions, which I am not sure are correct. First off, it treats "violence" as a single undifferentiated category, assuming that the child will automatically make the analogy from "spanking" to other types/intensities of violence, from a young child to other types of possible recipients, and from a disciplinary context to a different context. Second, it assumes that the act of spanking will will somehow out weigh all the other anti-violence/moral teachings/examples provided by parental figures. It may seem clearly hypocritical to you to spank a child and then turn around and say "no fighting, violence is bad" but, I'm not sure a child will automatically see it that way (I certainly didn't). (I could also add something here about cost benefit analysis of the potential harm done vs. the potential benefits gained, but I'll leave that for someone else).
It seems to me that assumptions are the greatest enemy to any sort of reasonable discussion of this topic. There are two major areas of potential barriers to communication: A) people imagine differing levels of corporal punishment when terms like "hitting" or "spanking" are used: the is a great deal of difference between the kid who gets beat weekly with a belt, and the kid who receives two or three light swats to the bottom over the course of their childhood. And B) people extrapolate from their experience, both as children and parents, without acknowledging that corporal punishment may effect different individuals in different ways. I.E. simply because alternate methods were successful for your child does not mean they will be successful for another. The opposite is also true: just because spanking worked for your child does not mean it will be beneficial for another.
I understand the urge to simplify, generalize, and extrapolate - everyone is looking for a universally applicable rule - but I don't think it is helpful in this discussion. The above concept - "corporal punishment teaches acceptance for violence" - is not necessarily true in all situations, unless you take the extreme position that all violence is wrong no matter the circumstance. The only thing it clearly teaches, in my opinion, is that corporal punishment is a potential parenting tool. If corporal punishment is an anathema to you, and you make no distinction between it an other forms of "violence," then of course that is not a message you will want to send. But if you can compartmentalize the corporal punishment form other forms and contexts of physical force, then what is to say your child will not do the same. Especially with you there to guide them.
Posted in: Have you ever hit your child, no matter how lightly, as a means of discipline?
-2
Triumvere
Or, you know, the 87 year old woman might have gotten the date wrong, and been "attached" multiple units. Are you even sure she is 87? History is often messy. We do not see the past with perfect clarity. However, just because some of the details are off does not mean the the story is therefore false. While I applaud your critical approach, may I suggest you are being overly critical? An official document is not necessarily the last word on a particular subject. Nor does an inconsistency necessarily invalidated the larger narrative.
Posted in: Japan's sex slave legacy remains open wound