Jump to content

Is hitting your kids child abuse?


Recommended Posts

Well, no, put some covers on the sockets! And keep them away from those dangers, like a good parent should! Don't hit him because he walks out into the street. It's your fault you let him in the first place. .

 

It is absolutely irresponsible parenting to protect your child to the extent it does not learn to look out for itself. You cannot follow your child around at arm's reach 24/7 and to suggest so leads me to believe you're not a parent. You must teach your child of the dangers in life at a very young age if you want them to beat the Darwinian odds.

 

Again, no, I didn't say leave traps around the house to snap your child in two. I said you can't protect them 100% and you are directly responsible for their skills in personal safety so to "put some covers on the sockets" as your one stop solution is lazy and traitorous to your child. They deserve to know not to put things in light sockets - for when they are not locked in your "child safe" house. Or is your next suggestion going to be that we not allow our children to leave the yard?

 

You shouldn't have let him out someplace where he could get hurt, then you hit him for it?! And all that hitting them will teach them is fear, they have to understand why it's wrong. You're going to a hit child who can't even understand your words and expect him to know what it means.

 

You shouldn't let them play in the yard? That's weird. And far more cruel than the tried and true spanking that fixes the 'going into the street' problem. And yes, it works. See, at two years old, they really don't understand nor do they really care. If you could even get them to remotely understand why it's wrong, they'd forget why a few minutes later. And many times, they love to just challenge your authority and essentially flip you off to see if you'll do something. Kids are funny. They're brand new little people figuring out the social structure. Physical domination is necessary to stop them from doing things that will hurt them or the group until they are of the psychological capacity to negotiate this on their own.

 

A two year old child remembers better and responds more reliably to a swat on the butt when approaching the street, than trying to explain that cars can kill you. Sorry, but until their marbles develop to the point they can understand such concepts, they rely on us to teach them with other useful triggers - like pain in the butt.

 

And hitting him that young will teach him nothing but fear and aggression and to solve his problems by hitting. Imagine if he sees another child put his fingers in the socket, and he hits him like you did. What about other problems that will be solved by hitting, maybe someone took his toy away, hit. Maybe he doesn't like someone or someone, hit!

 

Yeah, kids learn from watching others and one of those things is that they're not in charge and don't get to dole out punishments. Hitting or otherwise. They also learn hard lessons of mocking other's behavior, like mimicing a love scene they watched in a movie, or drinking bleach like their older brother pretended to do the day before. So, sure I'll bet my spanking makes the list of observed behaviors to try out, and we take care of it like any other inappropriate behavior. It's not an "issue" like I'm sure you'd like to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is no doubt that violent and abusive parenting correlates strongly with children becoming violent adults. However, we are left with a nature versus nurture query. Do the children become viol

It is absolutely irresponsible parenting to protect your child to the extent it does not learn to look out for itself. You cannot follow your child around at arm's reach 24/7 and to suggest so leads

Our children are our most precious gift, and I do not for one picosecond advocate anything that would harm them.   Let us be clear on that.   Our children should never be abused, and I will stri

Our children are our most precious gift, and I do not for one picosecond advocate anything that would harm them.

 

Let us be clear on that.

 

Our children should never be abused, and I will strike down with the certainty of my being anyone who does harm to their innocence or to their well being.

 

If you wish to paint me as a monster for this, then so be it.

 

 

We simply must be clear on what we mean by hitting and on what we do for the express benefit of our children, both collectively and directly.

 

I am an advocate for rules, boundaries, and limitations, and the enforcement of each. That enforcement comes in different forms, and sometimes our children cannot be nurtured and protected with words alone. There is a difference between one who seeks the benefit of their children and one who simply harms them, and you do yourself a disservice to miss this important distinction.

 

Abuse and leadership are not one and the same, and I urge you stop pretending they are. I just see greater harm in a lack of leadership than I do in a smack on the ass. If you feel otherwise, that is your perogative, but the world in which we live is real. It is difficult. It is not all sunshine and rainbows and lollipops.

 

I will fight to the death to protect my children, as well as the children of those I love, but sometimes my affection is best demonstrated by stong, clear, and decisive leadership, even if that guidance comes with the flat of my hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is absolutely irresponsible parenting to protect your child to the extent it does not learn to look out for itself. You cannot follow your child around at arm's reach 24/7 and to suggest so leads me to believe you're not a parent. You must teach your child of the dangers in life at a very young age if you want them to beat the Darwinian odds.

 

that doesn't mean you have to hit them to teach them. Why can't you put him in his room for 4 or 5 hours to teach him? It seems people think that physical punishment is the only solution, that it is the only thing that will work, I'd like to see some proof. Show me how many children where ever other method failed. I don't think there are droves of them.

 

Again, no, I didn't say leave traps around the house to snap your child in two. I said you can't protect them 100% and you are directly responsible for their skills in personal safety so to "put some covers on the sockets" as your one stop solution is lazy and traitorousto your child.

 

Wow, it's lazy to protect children, is it really that hard or expensive to buy some covers for the wall socket, no you'll dole out the belt, problem solved.

 

They deserve to know not to put things in light sockets - for when they are not locked in your "child safe" house. Or is your next suggestion going to be that we not allow our children to leave the yard?

 

 

You shouldn't let them play in the yard? That's weird. And far more cruel than the tried and true spanking that fixes the 'going into the street' problem. And yes, it works. See, at two years old, they really don't understand nor do they really care. If you could even get them to remotely understand why it's wrong, they'd forget why a few minutes later.

 

You should be watching him in the yard, to make sure he doesn't do it, and prevent him from doing it if he does. Not spanking him if he happens to try.

 

No, if he learns violence that early you can be he'll be violent in life, Kids do feel the pain emotional and physical, can you back what you're saying with some evidence? I've given you mine. I remember very clearly the time I got hit, it does stick with you, you don't forget it.

 

 

And many times, they love to just challenge your authority and essentially flip you off to see if you'll do something. Kids are funny. They're brand new little people figuring out the social structure.

 

Please back this up.

 

Physical domination is necessary to stop them from doing things that will hurt them or the group until they are of the psychological capacity to negotiate this on their own.

 

Not if you hit when they're that young.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, kids learn from watching others and one of those things is that they're not in charge and don't get to dole out punishments. Hitting or otherwise.

 

Hmm, so should you have the right to hit your wife if she does something wrong? Why are only kids the ones who can get hit? That's hypocritical. Actions speak louder than words my friend.

 

 

They also learn hard lessons of mocking other's behavior, like mimicing a love scene they watched in a movie, or drinking bleach like their older brother pretended to do the day before. So, sure I'll bet my spanking makes the list of observed behaviors to try out, and we take care of it like any other inappropriate behavior. It's not an "issue" like I'm sure you'd like to believe.

 

Physical violence is a lot different then what you describe, again refer to that study I gave you, which you keep ignoring.

 

Take a look at this one too

 

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/discipline.html

 

There are other punishments you can give them, it doesn't have to be physical.

Edited by layman77
Link to post
Share on other sites

"And, if you catch your child smoking pot in his room when he is 16-18 and he tells you to screw, you've already failed as a parent and didn't raise them

correctly."

 

I would like to say that if the kid says screw you... then perhaps you never connected with your child ( you don't owe them anything... what do they owe you? )... and you should either throw them out... or wait for them to leave... your choice...

 

As for hitting your kids... I would like to say so long as it's not in anger then it's fine... but you'll find some people who can make the rational decision to brutalize their child regardless of their emotions...

 

Maybe the laws should be set in the gray area... Child Abuse being illegal and hitting your child left out of it... after all... emotional abuse can fall outside of physical punishment...

 

Let the jury decide and give lawyers a job... jmo...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of lefties advocate 'time outs' nowadays. Timeouts, are essentially the silent treatment, or ostracism, which is far more painful.....it is the hallmark of people with borderline personality disorders, and is far more hurtful, damaging, and abusive then giving some brat a good swift smack round the ol' ear hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and is far more hurtful, damaging, and abusive then giving some brat a good swift smack round the ol' ear hole.

 

oh I dunno... ever felt the pain of a burst eardrum?

 

I suggest you THINK before you post!

Link to post
Share on other sites
oh I dunno... ever felt the pain of a burst eardrum?

 

I suggest you THINK before you post!

 

Well, I was actually exaggerating with the talk of the smack round the ear, but a spank on the bum and no Barney the Dinosaur for an hour is probably reasonable punishment. Emotion abuse can scar a child for a lifetime. Most people in the old days, like me, got spanked on the bum, not socially ostracised, and hey, look how well I turned out.

 

Also, I think the ostracisation of the lefty theory of the 'timeout' probably has contributed to the social ostracisation that gay people feel in society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that doesn't mean you have to hit them to teach them. Why can't you put him in his room for 4 or 5 hours to teach him? It seems people think that physical punishment is the only solution, that it is the only thing that will work, I'd like to see some proof. Show me how many children where ever other method failed. I don't think there are droves of them.

 

Wow, it's lazy to protect children, is it really that hard or expensive to buy some covers for the wall socket, no you'll dole out the belt, problem solved.

 

You should be watching him in the yard, to make sure he doesn't do it, and prevent him from doing it if he does. Not spanking him if he happens to try.

 

 

Hmm, so should you have the right to hit your wife if she does something wrong? Why are only kids the ones who can get hit? That's hypocritical. Actions speak louder than words my friend.

 

 

Physical violence is a lot different then what you describe, again refer to that study I gave you, which you keep ignoring.

 

.

 

 

 

I think you are missing pretty much missing ALL of ParanoiA's points. I can't be assed to address each one right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I was actually exaggerating with the talk of the smack round the ear, but a spank on the bum and no Barney the Dinosaur for an hour is probably reasonable punishment. Emotion abuse can scar a child for a lifetime. Most people in the old days, like me, got spanked on the bum, not socially ostracised, and hey, look how well I turned out.

We don't know how well you turned out, do we? And even if we did, it would be anecdotal evidence. Holding yourself up as an example doesn't really help anyone.

 

Also, I think the ostracisation of the lefty theory of the 'timeout' probably has contributed to the social ostracisation that gay people feel in society.

Have you ever wondered what contributes to the behaviour whereby one labels people as "lefties" to make it easier to dismiss what they thank?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that most of the people who insist that spanking is always wrong, also suggest that parents choose only physical punishment or only psychological/verbal punishment? Are they purposefully building a strawman argument? Nobody is arguing to only spank a child as the only form of punishment, only that it is sometimes the best choice of punishment.

 

Also, they like to build a strawman comparison, eg why employers cannot spank their employees. But neither can they send them to their room, send them to bed without supper, or have them stand in the corner. I do believe the military has some physical punishment in the form of more exercise than usual though. Also, I do believe some counties use whipping and beating on adults instead of jailtime aplenty. Anyhow, employers and such do not have the right to punish you as a parent because they are not responsible for bringing you up (which is the same reason they may not punish your children), and past childhood any amount of physical punishment would have to be quite extreme in order to have much effect. Also, adults are independent and no longer under the authority of their parents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When was the last time you heard of a "natural" nuclear power plant. Yet, they said it was ok to hit because animals do it. You're avoiding the argument, ad hominem is they call it.

A little bit about fallacies: ad hominem attacks are attacks on the person making the argument. iNow did not ridiculed you (at least not in this particular statement). Many fallacies have been committed in this thread, mostly by you, layman77.

 

Regarding "When was the last time you heard of a "natural" nuclear power plant. Yet, they said it was ok to hit because animals do it": This little bit of nonsense combines multiple fallacies. It is a strawman argument in the sense that you have built up this argument of nuclear power plants being unnatural and then rebutted this strawman to counter iNow's argument that we are first and foremost animals. It is an argument from ridicule in the sense that a "natural" nuclear power plant is patently ridiculous. It is a false dichotomy argument in the sense that you are arguing there are only two choices: We are either animals through-and-through or we are completely separate from animals. At least three fallacies in two short sentences; nice job! (And that, BTW, is an ad hominem attack.)

 

If shock is ok, to teach someone that something isn't acceptable then why isn't it ok for your boss to hit you at work, or for them to whip an inmate or soldier, they would have made the same arguments when it was alllowed, you think that it's a perfectly acceptable form of punishment, the same as they did, yet now it's been completely banned in most places.

More fallacies. Here you employ argument from ridicule, false dichotomy, and strawman arguments.

 

Well, no, put some covers on the sockets! And keep them away from those dangers, like a good parent should!

That is not what a good parent does. That is what an overly protective parent does. Parents who go out of their way to keep their children away from all danger are doing their children a huge disservice. Good parents will teach their children that dangers exist and that children must take steps to avoid these dangers. Good parents at times intentionally expose their children to danger. For example, they teach their children how to drive. Good parents at times teach their children not to do stupid things like sticking a knife in an electrical outlet by teaching them not to do it. For a toddler, that takes a smack on the bum or a slap on the hand. A three or four year old has progressed some mentally. Other teaching techniques are available at this stage.

 

One of my children had a deadly sense of curiosity. Electrical sockets was one of them. Neither spankings nor talking worked. I finally found something that did work. I told him that what comes out of the socket would hurt him and might even kill him. I then told him that this time he was going to punish himself for trying to put a fork in a socket. I gave him a nine volt battery and told him that his punishment was to lick the top of the battery. Call it child abuse if you want. It worked.

 

=====================================

 

A lot of lefties advocate 'time outs' nowadays.

More fallacies lumped together, this time composition (applying the label lefty) and ad hominem (the implication is that lefties are inherently stupid and their arguments aren't worth squat). At least one of the posters who argues in favor of appropriately administered corporal punishment is, without a doubt, a "lefty".

Link to post
Share on other sites
that doesn't mean you have to hit them to teach them. Why can't you put him in his room for 4 or 5 hours to teach him? It seems people think that physical punishment is the only solution, that it is the only thing that will work, I'd like to see some proof. Show me how many children where ever other method failed. I don't think there are droves of them.

 

For one, depending on their age, a child won't remember why they're in their room to understand the punishment. At 2 years old, they'll forget why they were put there in just a few minutes. Every minute after that is just cruelty. And the few minutes they do understand, isn't enough of a consequence to be sure they won't repeat trying to go into the street.

 

Besides...based on your logic, we're not supposed to be away from our child's side, remember? To be "good" parents, we're supposed to suspend our entire lives for 18 years and follow them around to protect them right? (Oh, and somehow hunt and gather to provide food, clothing, shelter...) So we can't send them to their room as any consequence because we'll be right there with them - that's just hanging out. How do they know when we're in the living room because they're in trouble or because there's a good show on?

 

And lastly, you're busted for not reading my post. I specifically said spanking, accessing the pain trigger, is one of a SET of the tools for behavior modification. It's more useful and effective for dangerous behavior that the child cannot mentally process and understand and therefore subsequently adhere to reliably.

 

Wow, it's lazy to protect children, is it really that hard or expensive to buy some covers for the wall socket, no you'll dole out the belt, problem solved.

 

Yes, it's lazy to buy outlet covers and call it a day - I see about 1 outlet cover per thousand outlets outside of my home. Since I have no intention of locking my child away in my house, it's reasonable to expect my child will encounter such outlets elsewhere. So, while it may seem "enlightening" to buy some outlet covers, it's actually more important to teach him not to stick forks in outlets.

 

This would be akin to teaching your child not to use guns, rather than teaching him not to kill people. It's actually more responsible to address the problem itself.

 

You should be watching him in the yard' date=' to make sure he doesn't do it, and prevent him from doing it if he does. Not spanking him if he happens to try.

[/quote']

 

Of course we should be watching him - UNTIL he is trained to do it on his own. Your job is not to "protect your child". Your job is to "raise your child". Quite a difference. Raising my child involves protecting him/her, as well as training him/her how to negotiate danger in the big bad world, learning right from wrong, learning acceptable social behavior, and etc. not JUST protecting them. If that was my only responsibility as a parent, then sure, lock 'em up in a padded room with no outlets and viola! - I'm done.

 

But that's not my job, Layman. My job is to pass on my knowledge and prepare him for the world. This means letting him fall down on his face - oh no!! This means letting go of the handle bars so he can learn about balance on two wheels. Yes, he might fall, and it's ok.

 

No, if he learns violence that early you can be he'll be violent in life, Kids do feel the pain emotional and physical, can you back what you're saying with some evidence? I've given you mine. I remember very clearly the time I got hit, it does stick with you, you don't forget it.

 

"The time" you got hit? Sounds like abuse to me. If you only got hit once, it was abuse. Where did you get hit?

 

I don't remember "the time I got hit". I got spanked too many times to count. I'm not violent in the least. Neither are my kids. And you don't have anything to support that nonsense.

 

Please back this up.

 

Are you serious? You might as well ask me to back up the notion that dogs like to pee on trees. I'm a parent, and I don't know any parent in this thread, or this forum for that matter, that won't agree kids challenge your authority - particularly very, very young. Remember, my context as been consistently a 2 year old. They don't do it for any malicious reasoning, their just little people testing out the world around them. I don't know how you go about backing up common knowledge. But no, I don't feel obligated to do so. Neither should anyone else.

 

I think you need some experience before you engage here, because your lack of it is seriously hurting your ability to reason these concepts. There are plenty of parents that don't use spanking, and none of them use the arguments you've posited here - they have real life experience and they know when they're being unrealistic and naive.

 

Physical violence is a lot different then what you describe' date=' again refer to that study I gave you, which you keep ignoring.

 

Take a look at this one too

 

http://www.naturalchild.org/research/discipline.html

 

There are other punishments you can give them, it doesn't have to be physical.[/quote']

 

No, I looked at it, but I'm not paying to see the rest of it and I didn't see any sourcing. the natural child.org was hilarious.

 

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought other parents in their country physically disciplined their children. Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries, is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to measure children's aggression and anxiety.

 

Wow, what a scientific method that is... I don't suppose you've ever considered that what is considered "aggression", "anxiety", "often", "worries", "fearful" might change from culture to culture as well? It's not just the intensity of punishment that changes across cultures, layman.

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to post
Share on other sites
At least one of the posters who argues in favor of appropriately administered corporal punishment is, without a doubt, a "lefty".

I prefer to consider myself ideologically ambidextrous, thank you very much. :cool:

 

 

 

I used to teach kung fu to kids. I was in charge of the pre-K class, which had about 25 kids ages 4 to 6. Much of their behavior depended on my sense of calm. Like at the start of class, before I'd bow them in, they'd be all excited and loud and running around, and I would just sit there in a squat position with my hands at my belly waiting. My assistant instructors would do the same. Within 60 seconds all of the kids realized what to do and would quiet down.

 

Then, class would start. We'd do our exercises, and start practicing kicks and punches. Sometimes, kids would get out of control, and no words would penetrate the obsessed state of mind. With a quick grab of their gi (uniform) and a sweep, they were painlessly on the floor and knew why. This worked amazingly well, and the parents standing at the window watching me with their kids thanked me for it (many were often amazed and commented to me after class how impressed they were with how I was able to get their little ones to listen).

 

Calm, assertive, and swift. This is not abuse when done correctly.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
When was the last time you heard of a "natural" nuclear power plant. Yet, they said it was ok to hit because animals do it. You're avoiding the argument, ad hominem is they call it.

 

Disregarding the multiple logical fallacies in your post, and your misunderstanding of what ad hominem means, and your false accusations against iNow (which, ironically, you were the one committing -- simply calling the idea crazy, and then trying to change the topic to raw meat)...

 

Anyhow, you'll find a natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon. That's in Africa, in case you were wondering, and it is a fission reactor that ran on uranium just like our "unnatural" reactors. Also, earth's core is kept hot by radioactive decay, and that also powers earth's magnetic field.

 

Oh, and primates naturally prefer cooked meat to raw.

 

"Keep quiet and be thought a fool, open your mouth and remove all doubt" applies here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disregarding the multiple logical fallacies in your post, and your misunderstanding of what ad hominem means, and your false accusations against iNow (which, ironically, you were the one committing -- simply calling the idea crazy, and then trying to change the topic to raw meat)...

 

Anyhow, you'll find a natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon. That's in Africa, in case you were wondering, and it is a fission reactor that ran on uranium just like our "unnatural" reactors. Also, earth's core is kept hot by radioactive decay, and that also powers earth's magnetic field.

 

Man, you get some style points on that one, Mr. Skeptic. I had no idea. :)

 

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, you get some style points on that one, Mr. Skeptic. I had no idea. :)

 

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

That is a very common example if one knows their nuclear physics. I was refreshing my memory on nuclear physics a few years ago when I came across this natural reactor.

 

DH - Let this example serve as a reminder in the future of when not to assume something can't exist just because you couldn't think of how it could in the first place. :)

 

Here's another example: From http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283v1 - Physicists have recently observed that the nuclear decay rate of certain isotopes has a seasonal variation. Nothing in physics would even hint at something this odd. So it goes to show how totally unexpected things can be. Its not known exactly why this happens. It could be errors in the raw data or an interaction of the nucleus with the solar neutrino flux (which shouldn't make a difference anyway!?!?!?).

 

Pete

Edited by Pete
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a very common example if one knows their nuclear physics. I was refreshing my memory on nuclear physics a few years ago when I came across this natural reactor.

 

DH - Let this example serve as a reminded in the future of when not to assume something can't exist just because you couldn't think of how it could in the first place. :)

I'm not sure DH was your intended target with this comment. It was layman77 who inserted that particular non-relevance into the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure DH was your intended target with this comment. It was layman77 who inserted that particular non-relevance into the thread.
I mentioned it for two reasons, (1) due to DH's response, i.e.
It is an argument from ridicule in the sense that a "natural" nuclear power plant is patently ridiculous.

and (2) DH's personal information indicates that he's a physics student and this is something a physics student should take to heart. Since layman77 does not indicate it I didn't bother pointing this out. In anycase anyone can read my response. But since you mentioned it -

When was the last time you heard of a "natural" nuclear power plant.
Quite recently. You never heard of one?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

 

Pete

Edited by Pete
multiple post merged
Link to post
Share on other sites
I mentioned it for two reasons...

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

Also, to be fair to layman, today was the first time I'd heard of a natural nuclear reactor, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I mentioned it for two reasons, (1) due to DH's response, and (2) DH's personal information indicates that he's a physics student and this is something a physics student should take to heart. Since layman77 does not indicate it I didn't bother pointing this out.

Layman77 most certainly implied that a natural nuclear power plant is ridiculous and by extension used this to ridicule iNow's argument. This is argument from ridicule. Moreover, the Oklo site doesn't have the manmade plumbing, the signature cooling tower, the turbine generators, and electrical power lines that characterize a manmade nuclear power plant. This stuff doesn't grow on trees; we have to build it.

 

Arguing that a nuclear power plant with a cooling tower, turbine generators, and electrical power lines disseminating from the plant do not occur in nature is a red herring, a straw man, and argument from ridicule all rolled in one. That such things do not exist in nature has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we are animals (which we are). That a natural nuclear fission plant (sans cooling tower, turbines, and power lines) did exist 1.5 billion years ago just makes this argument from ridicule even more ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, most of us agree with him that much of the hitting people do with their children quickly goes too far. What we're here saying is that when done correctly it is an important part of raising a child. It's a difficult line to define. Where layman has gone wrong was in lumping me and others into the "Do you want the wrench or the brass knuckles" camp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn, now I feel bad for layman. Ah well, I guess we all learn from our falls...could sure do without the gang tackling though.

 

Well, I'd have spanked him for using fallacies in arguments, but he's too far away, so we'll all just keep it verbal. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" and all that stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Layman77 most certainly implied that a natural nuclear power plant is ridiculous and by extension used this to ridicule iNow's argument. This is argument from ridicule. Moreover, the Oklo site doesn't have the manmade plumbing, the signature cooling tower, the turbine generators, and electrical power lines that characterize a manmade nuclear power plant. This stuff doesn't grow on trees; we have to build it.

The idea of referring to Oklo was to cheat. I.e. to refer to an example where the basics of a nuclear power plant exist, i.e. where a a sustained nuclear fission occurs which generates power. Just because the nuclear power plants which exist today which are man-made have plumbing etc. doesn't mean that they are required in order to fit the definition of a nuclear power plant.

 

That a natural nuclear fission plant (sans cooling tower, turbines, and power lines) did exist 1.5 billion years ago just makes this argument from ridicule even more ridiculous.
Then simply ignore it
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.