Discipline for children

[fromderinside]

yes, it would. and the reason why is...

If you did the same to an adult, it would be assault. But when you do it to your child, it's not considered assault. Children are not adults.

no, it wouldn't be.
this is why your claims of wanting rational discussion are hilarious bullshit, ....

your pompousness regarding your own sense of your superiority on this subject to the contrary, you have yet to cite one study that shows a positive link between spanking and child development - numerous scientific studies have been linked showing a detrimental link between spanking and child development.
your sanctimoniousness aside, you have yet to answer the simplest of questions which would settle the entire matter once and for all.

Thanks for the usual list ad homs. Dropped like so many choice turds. So when does your argument begin?

You might begin with your rationalizations with respect assault. Consider parents have certain rights and liberties to go along with all those responsibilities.

 

[prideandfall]

Adults are capable of reason where children are not. This is not a comparable situation.

true, but also irrelevant, unless you can show how somehow "capable of reason" magically infers a blind spot in the morality of physically assaulting a person or not.

is it also acceptable to spank a retarded person, or someone with alzheimer's? if not, why not?

However, I do notice that you limited it to "Western" culture. You've conveniently, and quite cleverly, excluded all those areas of the world that allow for corporal punishment in their criminal justice systems.

not cleverly or conveniently - we're not having this discussion in a non-Western culture, or in a non-Western cultural context.
if you've been paying any attention to my posts you'd know that it's the hypocrisy of people who are opposed to using corporal punishment on adults advocating using it on children that i am all pissy about.

if you want to beat your kids for being uppity, i'm completely fine with that so long as i'm allowed to beat you for beating your kids.
i actually have less of an issue with say middle eastern cultures hitting their kids, since they hit their adults too - at least they're consistent.

In fact, it's only in relatively modern times that corporal punishment has been removed from our justice system - for a significant amount of human history corporal punishment in the form of whipping, flogging, and similar has been exactly parallel to the same actions taken with recalcitrant children. Now, of course, you're welcome to be disgusted by the actions of our ancestors, and to deride that as barbaric... but various forms of corporal punishment was used in criminal justice in the Western world into the 20th century.

it's also relatively modern that slavery isn't a thing that people do - do you consider that a reasonable argument for the continued practice of slavery?

 

[prideandfall]

You might begin with your rationalizations with respect assault. Consider parents have certain rights and liberties to go along with all those responsibilities.

okay, great - let's take that a given.

explain how those rights and liberties confers a moral imperative (or moral allowance) to physically assault the most defenseless members of our society.
i do not understand how one leads to the other... your argument sounds to me like "phase 1: collect underpants... phase 3: profit" - the lack of an explanation for phase 2 is the thing i'm being hung up on.

i get that children aren't adults, i have no issue with that concept and all it entails regarding limiting decision making rights.
i get that parents have certain rights and obligations when it comes to raising children, i have no issue with that either, including an expectation that at times a parent is going to have to man-handle a kid just to be able to wrangle them around.
what i don't get is the logic chain connecting those things with "and thus it's OK to physically assault children," when the act of spanking (or slapping or poking or whatever other stupid euphemism you want to use to try and downplay the fact you're inflicting pain on another person) in and of itself is: A. in no way required in order to parent, B. demonstrably harmful physically and psychologically, and C. somehow only applicable to the most vulnerable of us.

 

[Emily Lake]

Excuse me?

You think you can walk up to your friend in the park, tell her it's time to go, and then when she refuses to leave, to drag her kicking and screaming to the car? You don't think that's assault?

and you think you can just walk up to a random kid in a park, tell them it's time to go, and then when they refuse to leave drag them kicking and screaming to the car?

"your child" is not synonymous with "your friend" - if you want to equate it to an adult relationship it's closer to "a person under your legal guardianship", in which case it is in fact legal to physically coerce a person to obey reasonable instructions given in the conduct of your duties as a guardian.

But by your own logic here... "your child" is certainly not synonymous with "an adult" or "a coworker", which I believe is the example that you tried to use earlier. You wanted to equate an adult relationship to a child earlier when it fit your argument to do so... yet now you're backpedaling and taking the opposite stance.

 

[Emily Lake]

true, but also irrelevant, unless you can show how somehow "capable of reason" magically infers a blind spot in the morality of physically assaulting a person or not.

By your very own logic:

"your child" is not synonymous with "your friend" - if you want to equate it to an adult relationship it's closer to "a person under your legal guardianship", in which case it is in fact legal to physically coerce a person to obey reasonable instructions given in the conduct of your duties as a guardian.

not cleverly or conveniently - we're not having this discussion in a non-Western culture, or in a non-Western cultural context.

Special pleading, then, hmm? Okay then. As long as you're aware of that.

if you want to beat your kids for being uppity, i'm completely fine with that so long as i'm allowed to beat you for beating your kids.

As long as you're in a position of authority over me, with legal right to physically coerce my obedience, then by all means do so. Failing to have that authority, however, would simply make your actions assault and battery instigated by what I assume must be an almost crushing sense of self-righteousness... although I can't be completely sure.

 

[prideandfall]

FYI:
if you don't want it called 'physical assault', simply explain how an action which would be called physical assault in every single other possible context with any other human being (or animal) in any facet of life in our entire society is not applicable to children, and i'll stop calling it that.
just explain what part of the inherent nature of being a child means inflicting pain on them "doesn't count" and i'll drop it, as long as that explanation isn't based on magical thinking or hypocritically only applies to children and not to retarded people or the elderly for the same reason.

 

[Thomas II]

Hitting a child ...

It's like watching a roomful of adolescent males lose all capacity for reason when a pretty girl walks in. Are none of you capable of rational discussion on this issue, while avoiding basic logical fallacies?

Davka, I did not address my post to you, nor was I passing judgement on you...

 

[prideandfall]

But by your own logic here... "your child" is certainly not synonymous with "an adult" or "a coworker", which I believe is the example that you tried to use earlier. You wanted to equate an adult relationship to a child earlier when it fit your argument to do so... yet now you're backpedaling and taking the opposite stance.

okay, i hear what you're saying, but i think it's a completely different context - because i was saying that you can't hit an adult or a coworker for being an idiot or displeasing you, so why should you be able to hit a child for doing so.

i'm not taking the opposite stance, i'm just being consistent: either it's acceptable to inflict pain as a form of discipline/corrective behavior/etc, or it isn't.
if it is, great, that's fine - hit your kids all you want. but i should be legally allowed to hit you for doing so.
if it isn't, that's fine - but children shouldn't be a magical blind spot to whether or not inflicting pain by striking is considered assault or not.

 

[prideandfall]

Special pleading, then, hmm? Okay then. As long as you're aware of that.

not at all - as i said in the rest of you quote which you conveniently didn't include, they beat their adults as well as their children, so it's not a hypocrisy on their part and so i don't really care.

As long as you're in a position of authority over me, with legal right to physically coerce my obedience, then by all means do so. Failing to have that authority, however, would simply make your actions assault and battery instigated by what I assume must be an almost crushing sense of self-righteousness... although I can't be completely sure.

a crushing sense of self righteousness... that very aptly sums up how i view people who think it's OK for them to hit their kids.

this is once again coming back to the same point that you and others supporting your side of this discussion keep stone-walling on... explain to me how authority and even the legal right to physically coerce obedience confers the right to physically assault someone... i just want someone, anyone, to draw the link here.

like, here's another way of looking at it:
guards at a prison have a legal authority over the prisoners and they have the right to physically coerce a prisoner who won't cooperate - say a prisoner won't leave their cell, they can get in there and physically remove them.
that doesn't confer the right for guards to beat prisoners or to hit them or spank them or anything else - the legal authority to take charge of another person's physical situation exists in various forms, but nowhere does it infer the moral obligation nor the moral allowance to assault them.

 

[Davka]

Excuse me?

You think you can walk up to your friend in the park, tell her it's time to go, and then when she refuses to leave, to drag her kicking and screaming to the car? You don't think that's assault?

and you think you can just walk up to a random kid in a park, tell them it's time to go, and then when they refuse to leave drag them kicking and screaming to the car?

Straw Man. My scenario quite clearly stated "YOUR child," not "some random child."

"your child" is not synonymous with "your friend"

Very good - NOW we're getting somewhere! Finally, an admission that a child is not the same as an adult. And, by extension (in the context of this thread), behaviour which is perfectly acceptable towards a child is not acceptable towards an adult, and vice-versa.

- if you want to equate it to an adult relationship it's closer to "a person under your legal guardianship", in which case it is in fact legal to physically coerce a person to obey reasonable instructions given in the conduct of your duties as a guardian.

WHY do you think that society grants parents legal guardianship over their children? And WHY is it that carrying your own child away against their will is OK, but carrying an adult (not under your legal care) away against their will is NOT OK? Why do we make this distinction between perfectly healthy children of average intelligence and perfectly healthy adults of average intelligence?

You challenged me to "cite one single example in all of Western culture where what you're advocating doing to children wouldn't be called assault if you did it to an adult, and we can change the entire conversation." Instead, I gave you an example of WHY we do not treat children the way we treat adults, and WHY it is acceptable to do something to a child which would be considered "assault" if done to an adult.

YOU provided the example of a situation in which assaulting an adult would not be legally assault: if the person overriding the will of the adult were that adult's legal guardian.

So, now that YOU have provided "one single example in all of Western culture where what you're advocating doing to children wouldn't be called assault if you did it to an adult," can I assume that we will now "change the entire conversation"?

 

[Davka]

It's like watching a roomful of adolescent males lose all capacity for reason when a pretty girl walks in. Are none of you capable of rational discussion on this issue, while avoiding basic logical fallacies?

Davka, I did not address my post to you, nor was I passing judgement on you...

I didn't claim otherwise.

My primary focus in this thread has been pointing out the logical fallacies employed by many people here. The use of loaded terms such as "hitting" (or beating, bashing, abusing, and other choice words used in this thread) amounts to begging the question: the assumption that all physical discipline is abuse is contained in the choice of words. Neutral language evokes discussion and thought.

 

[Jokodo]

You can't use your words when you are frustraited and the smartest thing you can come up with is lashing out with violence. This is what a child does. An adult reasons.

More bullshit.

People, we're supposed to be well-reasoned, freethinking, intelligent humans here. Why is it that on this particular subject, the enormous, unfathomably complex Universe of nuanced shades of grey suddenly becomes a tiny self-righteous bubble of black-and-white?

I spanked my kids. I never, ever "lashed out with violence" or "beat" my children. <snip>

Actually, I find "lashing out with violence" more acceptable. In the heat of the moment, when everything is happening at once and your child does something very, very stupid when you least need it and you let your hand slip before you think about it? We're humans, shit happens. I can potentially even see myself doing it. I wouldn't be proud about it, and I would do my best to make up as soon as I've cooled down a bit, but I could still look myself in the mirror. But not after a cold-blooded, premediated assault.

 

[Davka]

But by your own logic here... "your child" is certainly not synonymous with "an adult" or "a coworker", which I believe is the example that you tried to use earlier. You wanted to equate an adult relationship to a child earlier when it fit your argument to do so... yet now you're backpedaling and taking the opposite stance.

okay, i hear what you're saying, but i think it's a completely different context - because i was saying that you can't hit an adult or a coworker for being an idiot or displeasing you, so why should you be able to hit a child for doing so.

You shouldn't. That's wrong. And nobody here is arguing otherwise.

 

[Jokodo]

tell you what, i'll totally back down and admit i was wrong and defer to all of you violence advocates

No, you won't. You'll deliberately use loaded, bigoted, closed-minded phrases like "violence advocates" and refuse to open your mind even the tiniest amount to the possibility that thoughtful, loving spanking

I'm all for thoughtful, loving spanking. There's a place for it, though: In the bedroom (or on a clearing in the forest if you prefer), between consenting adults, while the kids away with grandparents or fast asleep. There's no place for kids in thoughtful, loving spanking, though.

 

[Davka]

More bullshit.

People, we're supposed to be well-reasoned, freethinking, intelligent humans here. Why is it that on this particular subject, the enormous, unfathomably complex Universe of nuanced shades of grey suddenly becomes a tiny self-righteous bubble of black-and-white?

I spanked my kids. I never, ever "lashed out with violence" or "beat" my children. <snip>

Actually, I find "lashing out with violence" more acceptable. In the heat of the moment, when everything is happening at once and your child does something very, very stupid when you least need it and you let your hand slip before you think about it? We're humans, shit happens. I can potentially even see myself doing it. I wouldn't be proud about it, and I would do my best to make up as soon as I've cooled down a bit, but I could still look myself in the mirror. But not after a cold-blooded, premediated assault.

So if you were to pick your kid up calmly and carry them out of the park kicking and screaming, you would not be able to look yourself in the mirror? Because that would be a "cold-blooded, premeditated assault."

I am of the opinion that at least part of the rationale behind any form of child discipline is to stop them from repeating behavior which, if continued long enough, might very well trigger you to "lash out" in anger. Children who are somewhat respectful and mostly well-behaved are far less likely to trigger and angry, irrational beating than children who are undisciplined. The idea is to deal with the situation firmly and decisively before you reach a boiling point, not keep pleading ineffectually until you lose your temper.

 

[Jokodo]

Let´s see how this works.

"I hit my wife. I never, ever "lashed out with violence" or "beat" my spouse."

"I hit my dog. I never, ever "lashed out with violence" or "beat" my pet."

I spanked the autistic man I was taking care of. I never, ever "lashed out with violence" or "beat" him.

Why treat children different.

Nice try, but your inability to discuss nuance and shades of grey is keeping you from exercising logic.

There is a reason that our languages contain words such as "poke," "pat," "slap," "prod," "spank," "punch," "beat," and so on. Snow is not rain. Sex is not rape. Spanking is not beating. Discipline is not punishment. Masturbation is not adultery.

The "all spanking is abuse" crowd is no different from any extremist fundamentalist crowd. Jeebus says that the "sin" of masturbation is no different from committing genocide, and the consequences for both are the same. This sort of irrational refusal to acknowledge nuance makes rational discussion impossible.

There's not much logic in "violence is wrong except in this situation where I'm doing it too, so it must be right there".

 

[prideandfall]

Straw Man. My scenario quite clearly stated "YOUR child," not "some random child."

it's not a straw man, because YOUR child isn't equivalent of YOUR friend - you're the one who said walking up to 'a friend' in the park, you're the one who in your scenario established a non-parental relationship.
if it's a straw man, it's yours and not mine.

Finally, an admission that a child is not the same as an adult.

finally? that's been fully acknowledged by everyone at every point in this thread.

And, by extension (in the context of this thread), behaviour which is perfectly acceptable towards a child is not acceptable towards an adult, and vice-versa.

and this is untrue, if you keep the caparison within equitable contexts - such as legal guardianship or some other sort of authority position (like a prison guard for example).
there are behaviors which are perfectly acceptable towards someone under your legal care which are not acceptable to someone who is not under your legal care, that is absolutely true.
this STILL doesn't come close to explaining why assault is only permissible to children and nobody else.

WHY do you think that society grants parents legal guardianship over their children? And WHY is it that carrying your own child away against their will is OK, but carrying an adult (not under your legal care) away against their will is NOT OK? Why do we make this distinction between perfectly healthy children of average intelligence and perfectly healthy adults of average intelligence?

is this rhetorical, or are you actually expecting an explanation here? because i'm not seeing how this is relevant.

You challenged me to "cite one single example in all of Western culture where what you're advocating doing to children wouldn't be called assault if you did it to an adult, and we can change the entire conversation." Instead, I gave you an example of WHY we do not treat children the way we treat adults, and WHY it is acceptable to do something to a child which would be considered "assault" if done to an adult.

but you didn't, because:
A. you're STILL just saying "it's ok to hit children because fuck children" without defining any quality about children which make them legitimate targets for hitting.
B. treating children different from adults is a a given and acceptable, and in no way relates to "it's OK to hit them" like you keep pretending it is.

YOU provided the example of a situation in which assaulting an adult would not be legally assault: if the person overriding the will of the adult were that adult's legal guardian.

and i provided an example which would be equally acceptable to do to a child - i've said it before and will again, sometimes kids need to be man-handled, and no question about it.
that doesn't equate to it being OK to hit them.

So, now that YOU have provided "one single example in all of Western culture where what you're advocating doing to children wouldn't be called assault if you did it to an adult," can I assume that we will now "change the entire conversation"?

no, because that's not what you're advocating doing to children - that's not assaulting them.

it's really simple and i don't get why you can't or won't respond to this directly:
hitting any adult for any reason in any context (legal guardian or not) is considered assault - there is no context in existence in Western culture where hitting an adult for the purposes of teaching them a lesson or correcting their behavior is considered acceptable.
therefor, it is logically, intellectually, and morally untenable to say that it is acceptable to hit a child - because children do not have some magic quality which makes them "less than" or undeserving of the same basic protections as adults, and your continued failure to provide one is just further evidence of this.

 

[Angry Floof]

Spanking, whether you call it loving or not, affects the nervous system and gray matter, making kids dumber in effect, and is linked to higher aggression and less self control in children as well as to the tendency for anxiety, depression, addiction, etc., later on through life.

There just is no good reason for spanking. Can anyone provide evidence that spanking has any positive effect?

Note that personal anecdotes aren't very useful here. Thousands of people trot out that tired shit about how "I was spanked and I turned out fine!" (I wonder how many spanked kids grew up to be "fine" as long as they have their meds?)

 

[fromderinside]

You might begin with your rationalizations with respect assault. Consider parents have certain rights and liberties to go along with all those responsibilities.

okay, great - let's take that a given.

explain how those rights and liberties confers a moral imperative (or moral allowance) to physically assault the most defenseless members of our society.
i do not understand how one leads to the other... your argument sounds to me like "phase 1: collect underpants... phase 3: profit" - the lack of an explanation for phase 2 is the thing i'm being hung up on.

i get that children aren't adults, i have no issue with that concept and all it entails regarding limiting decision making rights.
i get that parents have certain rights and obligations when it comes to raising children, i have no issue with that either, including an expectation that at times a parent is going to have to man-handle a kid just to be able to wrangle them around.
what i don't get is the logic chain connecting those things with "and thus it's OK to physically assault children," when the act of spanking (or slapping or poking or whatever other stupid euphemism you want to use to try and downplay the fact you're inflicting pain on another person) in and of itself is: A. in no way required in order to parent, B. demonstrably harmful physically and psychologically, and C. somehow only applicable to the most vulnerable of us.

First, lets take the fact that parents often do inflict pain on themselves, other adults, and children whilst they are being reasonable persons. Why should this state of affairs exist? My view is it has to do with capacity to communicate and interact as one accepting another as like oneself. If for whatever reason, capability, upbringing, prejudice, community, striking others is acceptable then one needs find a morality that includes that fact. Your apparent position that striking is immoral because it causes pain or harm also needs to be adjusted to account for these happenings in normal society.

If you choose to call that behavior abnormal you need to demonstrate that the majority of any cohort does not routinely strike out at others as part of ordinary acceptable behavior. If you say there is no evidence that striking has benefits you need to account for war, demonstration, and policing in your morality. Finally if you claim that moral striking is only applicable on the most vulnerable of us you need to explain why its alright in many communities for women to strike men or small men to strike physically more robust men for small children to strike larger children, etc.

 

[Davka]

Nice try, but your inability to discuss nuance and shades of grey is keeping you from exercising logic.

There is a reason that our languages contain words such as "poke," "pat," "slap," "prod," "spank," "punch," "beat," and so on. Snow is not rain. Sex is not rape. Spanking is not beating. Discipline is not punishment. Masturbation is not adultery.

The "all spanking is abuse" crowd is no different from any extremist fundamentalist crowd. Jeebus says that the "sin" of masturbation is no different from committing genocide, and the consequences for both are the same. This sort of irrational refusal to acknowledge nuance makes rational discussion impossible.

There's not much logic in "violence is wrong except in this situation where I'm doing it too, so it must be right there".

Well, this is certainly an accurate statement, but I fail to see what it has to do with this thread, or with any positions advocated by any of the participants on this thread.