"Fair" punishment

Medusa said:

hmm.I had taken it as reinforcement ,punishment ,behaviorism etc. from educational perspective :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

You have no idea how thankful I am for this statement.

The didn't do their homework and decided to play with their toys instead. Does that help?

But I guess what does it matter if it is the same thing? I find that very curious. Isn't the quantity of toys arbitrary anyway? Can you some how put a price in toys on misbehavior?

WCH said:

That was where my spankings occurred. So?

I never got my toys taken away.

Click to expand...

So what do you take from that? If both boys get spanked instead, does it eliminate the need to even care about how many toys they have?

pdog said:

I never considered this a complex question until recently. I wanted to put it into generic terms and see what kind of responses I got but do it in terms that was a little less loaded. This is largely a social science question regarding concepts like surplus, deprivation, etc.

This is simply an opinion poll. The boys are the same in each scenario, and you can assume that they misbehaved in the same manner. The number of toys never change. The only thing that changes is the cost of punishment. Choose the one you feel treats both boys with the same degree of punishment and maybe explain why.

Click to expand...

I chose #1 that they both lose their toys. If the punishment is no toys, then it doesn't matter how many each start with. They end up with no toys.

Another progressive fine question.



I'm hate to have to do so, but I guess I will. I'm going to burst your bubble.






Kids =/= Adults.

pdog said:

You have no idea how thankful I am for this statement.

Click to expand...

not at all :mrgreen:.but thats why I believe we need to learn what they did.

pdog said:

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you not see the poll question?

Click to expand...

How can you punish if you dont know the reason? All reasons are not equal.

celticwar17 said:

Wow... people have a hard time dealing with hypotheticals... its pretty common sense on what the thread means, but maybe not everyone has common sense...Now whether you can compare this demonstration to other things, is a question in and of itself...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer, you nailed my logic but it was the above sentence I wanted to call out. I don't think it's the hypothetical. This is not a difficult hypothetical. I think it's the abstract. People are always suggestion things like making it based on time, but they don't say why. I think it's because they are not able to isolate two things:

One) the difference between the punishment relative to the person and the punishment relative to the behavior. The latter is completely arbitrary. There is no rhyme or reason to one toy vs. two. But people make an "is what it is" argument not realizing it's just an appeal to authority. The former is what I want people to acknowledge - punishment as a measure of how it affects the target. I do not want them to feel bad for the kid. I want them to recognize that because he had less to loose he was more affected by the punishment. It is likely that the kid that lost all toys got the biggest "lesson" out of the punishment and is less likely to repeat the behavior. So the question is, if you want equal results and equal affects (ie no toys), how can you possibly rely on an arbitrary punishment? It is simple math.

IF this is genuinly not about progressive fines, and legitimately about how to punish CHILDREN, then A, the punishment should match the crime (I swear by time outs...my kids hate that more than anything else, even spanking), and B, the punishment should not vary from child to child if the crimes are of equal severity.

In other words, no matter the number of toys, if taking away ALL toys is the punishment, that must be evenly applied. I can't imagine why would want to take away only ONE toy, unless the toy itself is the focus of the misbehavior. Taking away ONE toy, or half of their toys, is a waste of time, IMO.

KevinKohler said:

Another progressive fine question.



I'm hate to have to do so, but I guess I will. I'm going to burst your bubble.






Kids =/= Adults.

Click to expand...

We can discuss that later (it's already come up). Did you at least answer in this context?

KevinKohler said:

Another progressive fine question.



I'm hate to have to do so, but I guess I will. I'm going to burst your bubble.






Kids =/= Adults.

Click to expand...

We can discuss that later (it's already come up). Did you at least answer in this context?

Lursa said:

How can you punish if you dont know the reason? All reasons are not equal.

Click to expand...

Because you're trying to punish equally. The reason should cancel out since you'd be trying to apply the same punishment to both kids. But if you need one, the last one I gave was that they didn't do their homework.

pdog said:

1) But what does this mean? 2) Do you see why this is a tough question? 3) Who decides that one toy and not two is the 'proper' penalty? 4) There's nothing propery about it - it's arbitrary. 5) What is the "severity of the infraction"? 6) Severe relative to who/what? I'm not playing games, these are real questions that seem to have appeal-to-authority type answers.




I agree. 7) But the question to you is does time make for a better sentence? 8) What is different about time compared to toys in this case? To me it's because time is equal - while each kid may or may not have toys to play with after a punishment, both sacrifice the same amount of time out of their day.

Click to expand...

1) It means that if you punch someone that is more serious than if you insult them.

2) What is "this"?

3) The law makers and/or the judge. Using the example of a roadside dumping fine ($15 to $200) the fine amount usually depends on the amount dumped or clean-up time required and may also depend on one's prior dumping convictions.

4) All such penalties are arbitrary or you would not have made this poll. The entire idea here seems to be defining the "fair" penalty.

5) The severity of the infraction means that punching someone would result in a more severe sentence than for merely insulting someone. If that is too subjective for you then stealing a car is more severe than stealing a plastic flamingo from a residence.

6) The amount of actual damage to the victim or the amount/probability of potential damage. That is why driving with a BAC of .03 is not as serious a driving with a BAC of .24 thus the penalty for the latter is greater.

7) While everyone does not have toys everyone has time.

8) In this case, the deprivation time period was fixed, at one week, yet you want us to vary the sentence for the same infraction based on the number of toys that each child has. You seem to think that the number of toys possessed should have some bearing on the sentence imposed while I do not.

pdog said:

Because you're trying to punish equally. The reason should cancel out since you'd be trying to apply the same punishment to both kids. But if you need one, the last one I gave was that they didn't do their homework.

Click to expand...

I see.

pdog said:

We can discuss that later (it's already come up). Did you at least answer in this context?

Click to expand...

As a progressive fine question? No, you set the fine, whatever it is, and apply it evenly.

If the fine for speeding is 150 bucks, so be it. We're spending hours debating a non issue.

pdog said:

We can discuss that later (it's already come up). Did you at least answer in this context?

Click to expand...

As a progressive fine question? No, you set the fine, whatever it is, and apply it evenly.

If the fine for speeding is 150 bucks, so be it. We're spending hours debating a non issue.

KevinKohler said:

IF this is genuinly not about progressive fines, and legitimately about how to punish CHILDREN, then A, the punishment should match the crime (I swear by time outs...my kids hate that more than anything else, even spanking), and B, the punishment should not vary from child to child if the crimes are of equal severity.

In other words, no matter the number of toys, if taking away ALL toys is the punishment, that must be evenly applied. I can't imagine why would want to take away only ONE toy, unless the toy itself is the focus of the misbehavior. Taking away ONE toy, or half of their toys, is a waste of time, IMO.

Click to expand...

I've been clear that I'm interested in the behavioral and punitive aspects of this example, but I don't want to be deceitful and let you believe that this is ONLY about disciplining children. Will I ask you at some point about the application of adults? Maybe. But as stated previously I will entertain the debate of the failed analogy between children and adults if that is your position.

The question is what component is fair about a time out (also use them a ton) that isn't present with toys. Why is taking away half of their toys a waste of time. To me it's the relationship of that thing of value to the kid. Both kids have the same amount of time in a day. But if you use a unit that is unequal between those two kids, is a kid that had enough insulation from the punishment really being punished the same?

And I should clarify something - this is not about progressive fines, nor did I seek to absolutely defend progressive fines in the other thread. The bigger question to me is can something with a disparity be an effective and fair punishment. I could easily agree with you - it is pointless to try to make a fair punishment out of an arbitrary quantity of toys.

pdog said:

I never considered this a complex question until recently. I wanted to put it into generic terms and see what kind of responses I got but do it in terms that was a little less loaded. This is largely a social science question regarding concepts like surplus, deprivation, etc.

This is simply an opinion poll. The boys are the same in each scenario, and you can assume that they misbehaved in the same manner. The number of toys never change. The only thing that changes is the cost of punishment. Choose the one you feel treats both boys with the same degree of punishment and maybe explain why.

Click to expand...

Timmy and Tommy deserve to be beaten down by the police, suffer trials as adults with a public defender, and to be incarcerated for life without parole. This is America damn it--they never earned those toys to begin with. Damn welfare tikes.

pdog said:

Because you're trying to punish equally. The reason should cancel out since you'd be trying to apply the same punishment to both kids. But if you need one, the last one I gave was that they didn't do their homework.

Click to expand...

Assuming that a child may play with only one toy at a time, do you wish to simply limit their toy selection options or to deprive them of all toys for that week? The poll choices offered cause this choice to be made.

pdog said:

I never considered this a complex question until recently. I wanted to put it into generic terms and see what kind of responses I got but do it in terms that was a little less loaded. This is largely a social science question regarding concepts like surplus, deprivation, etc.

This is simply an opinion poll. The boys are the same in each scenario, and you can assume that they misbehaved in the same manner. The number of toys never change. The only thing that changes is the cost of punishment. Choose the one you feel treats both boys with the same degree of punishment and maybe explain why.

Click to expand...

I think I would have taken their iPhones and tablets away from them too.

pdog said:

I never considered this a complex question until recently. I wanted to put it into generic terms and see what kind of responses I got but do it in terms that was a little less loaded. This is largely a social science question regarding concepts like surplus, deprivation, etc.

This is simply an opinion poll. The boys are the same in each scenario, and you can assume that they misbehaved in the same manner. The number of toys never change. The only thing that changes is the cost of punishment. Choose the one you feel treats both boys with the same degree of punishment and maybe explain why.

Click to expand...

In terms of The word "punishment" the only effective negative reinforcement that is available is to remove all toys. In terms of fairness, equality isn't the preeminent goal but effectiveness is. Punishment shapes behavior, fairness shapes feelings.

pdog said:

I never considered this a complex question until recently. I wanted to put it into generic terms and see what kind of responses I got but do it in terms that was a little less loaded. This is largely a social science question regarding concepts like surplus, deprivation, etc.

This is simply an opinion poll. The boys are the same in each scenario, and you can assume that they misbehaved in the same manner. The number of toys never change. The only thing that changes is the cost of punishment. Choose the one you feel treats both boys with the same degree of punishment and maybe explain why.

Click to expand...

Lets say that Timmy has an X-box and a remote controlled helicopter and that Tommy has two matchbox cars and two stuffed bears. Does that change your idea of equality of deprivation any?

ttwtt78640 said:

1) It means that if you punch someone that is more serious than if you insult them.

Click to expand...

That is not, nor has it ever been the question at hand. This is two people punching somebody, period. I have no interest in talking about the arbitrary fine decided by an authority.

2) What is "this"?

Click to expand...

The numbers you broke down below were my elaboration

3) The law makers and/or the judge. Using the example of a roadside dumping fine ($15 to $200) the fine amount usually depends on the amount dumped or clean-up time required and may also depend on one's prior dumping convictions.

Click to expand...

But this is the very definition of "appeal to authority." There is no logic that goes into establishing a fine anymore than there is to establishing the number of toys. IT IS ARBITRARY.

4) All such penalties are arbitrary or you would not have made this poll. The entire idea here seems to be defining the "fair" penalty.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The aspect is from the effect on the punishee.

5) The severity of the infraction means that punching someone would result in a more severe sentence than for merely insulting someone. If that is too subjective for you then stealing a car is more severe than stealing a plastic flamingo from a residence.
6) The amount of actual damage to the victim or the amount/probability of potential damage. That is why driving with a BAC of .03 is not as serious a driving with a BAC of .24 thus the penalty for the latter is greater.

Click to expand...

You're comparing, not establishing basis for either of those two examples. You're justifying 'more' which I agree with. But one toy more or 100 toys more is completely arbitrary.

7) While everyone does not have toys everyone has time.
Totally, 100% agree. So why do we have penalties in "toys" at all?

8) In this case, the deprivation time period was fixed, at one week, yet you want us to vary the sentence for the same infraction based on the number of toys that each child has. You seem to think that the number of toys possessed should have some bearing on the sentence imposed while I do not.

Click to expand...

No - I see "all toys" being equal. Neither kid gets to play and must think about their actions. The reality is that this 100% toys option is the same has not making the punishment based on toys at all. It is TIME without toys.

Double post, site is acting a little weird.

pdog said:

I've been clear that I'm interested in the behavioral and punitive aspects of this example, but I don't want to be deceitful and let you believe that this is ONLY about disciplining children. Will I ask you at some point about the application of adults? Maybe. But as stated previously I will entertain the debate of the failed analogy between children and adults if that is your position.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm no parental expert...I have a 5 year old daughter, and a 3 year old son, and frankly, I just kinda make **** up as I go. I think my parents did a pretty bang up job with me, but I can't remember **** from when I was 5. I think that taking things away makes for a better punishment than physical pain or fear, up to a point. Physical pain is over with rather quickly, unless you're a hardcore spanker, at which point...well, we won't get into that. For me, as a kid, the worst was when I KNEW I was getting a spanking when my dad got home, and had to sit around and WAIT for it. My kids are still a bit young for that, IMO, so I take away something equally precious, their time. Time out for me is sitting in a chair facing the wall at the end of the hallway, QUIETLY. The timer doesn't start till you stop crying or yelling or screaming. Works wonders. I don't think I would be physically capable of taking away ALL of their toys. I'd have to lock them in the computer room, and even then, they might have one or two stashed. As for the other argument...punishments between the wealthy and not wealthy will NEVER be fair. They CAN'T be. Good quote from the last Batman movie...."The rich don't even go broke the same...". And that's the truth. You could take away ALL of Warren Buffets money for speeding, and the man would be perfectly fine. He has access to resources the rest of us don't, by virtue of his wealth and reputation. There's no changing that, and all progressive fines will serve to do is make our legal system even worse, more expensive, and more jammed up. Imagine a world where rich people hire lawyers to fight every single fine or citation, instead of just paying them outright?

The question is what component is fair about a time out (also use them a ton) that isn't present with toys. Why is taking away half of their toys a waste of time. To me it's the relationship of that thing of value to the kid. Both kids have the same amount of time in a day. But if you use a unit that is unequal between those two kids, is a kid that had enough insulation from the punishment really being punished the same?

Click to expand...

Taking away half of their toys does not deprive them of toys. A kid only needs one. I mean, if you had older kids, with a xbox or whatever, would taking away HALF of his video games REALLY hurt him? Not really. Sure, he'll wine for a few minutes, but then he'll realize he's perfectly fine picking up some game he hasn't played in a while. Same with kids and toys. It doesn't....hurt them. It's just not gonna deter them from acting up, the same way taking away ALL of their toys would. And for my money, timeout is SO MUCH EASIER.

And I should clarify something - this is not about progressive fines, nor did I seek to absolutely defend progressive fines in the other thread. The bigger question to me is can something with a disparity be an effective and fair punishment. I could easily agree with you - it is pointless to try to make a fair punishment out of an arbitrary quantity of toys.

Click to expand...

Effective, yes, as evidenced by a lack of rich people speeding around all over the place...fair? No.