Discipline for children

[Angry Floof]

Can anyone provide evidence of any positive effects of spanking?

 

[Jokodo]

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.

It has everything to do with this thread, where the closest we've come to an argument for spanking is "I have spanked my children and I know I'm a good person so it can't be a bad thing" and yet we've people defending it.

 

[rousseau]

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.

Here's the link:

Thousands of years ago we lived in a lawless, violent society where hitting your kids was something everybody did with no scientific basis. Because everybody did it the practice was normalized and carried on, still with no scientific basis. When you think about it, the practice makes a real nice analogy with religion, and many other practices. Even though we're leaving the dark ages in the context of some things, in other areas we are still there.

When you look at the psychology of the issue you have millions upon millions of parents who don't have the slightest clue what's going on in their kids heads, and they don't know how to deal with situations outside of using violence and aggression.

 

[Davka]

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

I know you believe this to be true, but I have never seen a single honest study on the issue. Every study I've ever seen contains loaded words like "beating" and "hitting," and equates them with spanking. Reading such a thing in a supposedly scientific study is as jarring as seeing the words "unborn baby," "killing," and "murder" in a supposedly scientific study of abortion. When I see this language, I know already that no actual science has been applied.

Abusing children is definitely harmful in all the ways you list. But I've never seen a cogent or rational argument which concludes that all spanking is abusive. In fact, I've never seen any attempt to study conscious spanking as opposed to unconscious abuse. All the studies in the area appear to begin with the unsupported premise that all spanking is abuse.

 

[prideandfall]

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.

my position is actually that you can say it's OK to hurt people, or you can say it's not OK to hurt people - but to me it's unacceptable to say you can't hurt anyone except for the most defenseless and vulnerable.

i don't think it's cool to hit kids, as a general statement, but i also hate children so fuck the little bastards - beat the shit out of them all you want, i don't have any moral compulsion to protect kids just for the sake of it.
but the rank hypocrisy and smugness of those who think it's totally unacceptable to spank an adult while thinking it's a moral imperative to spank a kid just sickens me.

 

[Jokodo]

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."

No, it isn't. And if I restrain an adult person on an acid trip who's trying to run into the highway and carry him or her back to safety, I'm not assaulting them either. It might look like that to a bystander, but would never and should never be judged as such in a court. It works for kids and for adults: If someone is incapable to make decisions, you are allowed to make certain decisions for them, within reason.

In neither case to you get to hurt them to "teach them a lesson".

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.

Are you claiming that parents who see nothing wrong with hitting their child in cold blood are less likely to lash out in anger? Do you have do data to support this, Mr. I-would-love-a-reasoned-discussion?

 

[prideandfall]

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.

explain the difference between hitting someone on the ass and spanking them.

Neutral language evokes discussion and thought.

well then you might want to try it some time.

 

[Jokodo]

So Davka.

Is it ok to "spank" a developmentally disabled adult that is in your care?

Is it OK to engage in sexual intercourse with a developmentally disabled adult that is in your care?

How is this analogy supposed to help you?

And what does this question have to do with the ethical consideration of rape versus consensual sex?

The fact that none of the anti-spanking advocates appear capable of making their point without resorting to innumerable logical fallacies and strained metaphors is quite telling.

How is this a logical fallacy? Your argument seems to be that its OK to spank children because you can't reason with them. If that makes it OK, the rule should logically apply to other persons you can't reason with. It doesn't. Your argument fails. Try another one.

 

[Davka]

Can anyone provide evidence of any positive effects of spanking?

I can find no accurate, reliable, or scientific information on the long-term effects of spanking whatsoever. There is a lot of information on the effects of child abuse, but nothing at all on spanking.

 

[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

I know you believe this to be true, but I have never seen a single honest study on the issue.

There's references to at least four studies in this one article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/health/effects-spanking-brain/

What is the line between abuse and "loving spanking" as far as force or pain? How little force do you need to use on a child to be sure you're having no last effect at all? Do you have links for studies about that?

Also, again, is there any evidence of positive results of spanking? I mean, other than anecdotes from people who wish to use certain language to justify something they don't want to admit having possibly gotten wrong. All anecdotes in support of spanking appear to begin with the unsupported premise that spanking has positive effects.

 

[Davka]

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.

It has everything to do with this thread, where the closest we've come to an argument for spanking is "I have spanked my children and I know I'm a good person so it can't be a bad thing" and yet we've people defending it.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of people defending spanking. Mostly what I've seen are irrational, fallacy-laden rants and a handful of people pointing out the fallacies in those rants. We haven't even gotten past the hysteria far enough to define what we mean by "spanking," let alone construct cogent arguments defending or opposing it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

my position is actually that you can say it's OK to hurt people, or you can say it's not OK to hurt people - but to me it's unacceptable to say you can't hurt anyone except for the most defenseless and vulnerable.

Well, since nobody is saying that, I guess your work here is done. Have a nice day! :wave:

- - - Updated - - -

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."

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Ask a lawyer.

 

[Angry Floof]

Can anyone provide evidence of any positive effects of spanking?

I can find no accurate, reliable, or scientific information on the long-term effects of spanking whatsoever. There is a lot of information on the effects of child abuse, but nothing at all on spanking.

But no evidence as to its positive effects? "I have no reason to think spanking my child will do him/her any good whatsoever, but I will defend spanking nonetheless. I'll stop hitting my kids when y'all show evidence that I shouldn't." (Even though we have shown the evidence.)

Without 100% certainty that your loving spanking might not be so loving long term in your child's life, why the fuck would anyone err on the side of hitting them anyway?

 

[prideandfall]

Well, since nobody is saying that, I guess your work here is done. Have a nice day! :wave:

oh, when you're lovingly spanking your children, you're doing so in a way that gently massages their tender young flesh to bring them to a state of excited enjoyment?

or do you 'air spank' them, and just expect them to get the message?

 

[Jokodo]

This is a Straw Man. You are attributing to me a statement which i did not make, and placing that statement in quotation marks so as to leave no doubt that you are attempting to attribute this statement to me. This is dishonest, and deserves no more than this simple act of written exposure.

Taking off someone's trousers and repeatedly hitting them on the bare buttocks with a wooden object is an assault. Rephrasing does not make a strawman when the content remains unchanged.

 

[Davka]

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.

Are you claiming that parents who see nothing wrong with hitting their child in cold blood are less likely to lash out in anger? Do you have do data to support this, Mr. I-would-love-a-reasoned-discussion?

There have been no studies on the subject, so the only evidence I have is anecdotal. And that plus $5 will get you a cup of decent coffee.

 

[prideandfall]

Yes, it is. Ask a lawyer.

no, it isn't - you are objectively wrong here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/battery
1. In criminal law, a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. In tort law, the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. (So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.)
2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.
3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

nothing about physically moving a person under your legal guardianship (or moving a person bodily to protect/defend them) falls under assault or battery.

on the flip side, every facet of spanking (or whatever cutesey language you want to use to worm around it) falls fully under the definition of both battery *and* assault.

 

[Jokodo]

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?

Yes, parents have legal guardianship over their children. That comes with the right (and, under specific circumstances, duty) to carry them away against their will, as it does when you have legal guardianship over an adult. It does not come with the right, let alone duty, to physically hurt them as a form of punishment.

 

[Davka]

Yes, it is. Ask a lawyer.

no, it isn't - you are objectively wrong here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/battery
1. In criminal law, a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.

. . . which exactly describes the act of grabbing someone and dragging them away against their will. Thanks for making my point and undermining yours.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Yes, parents have legal guardianship over their children. That comes with the right (and, under specific circumstances, duty) to carry them away against their will, as it does when you have legal guardianship over an adult. It does not come with the right, let alone duty, to physically hurt them as a form of punishment.

If you ever get around to arguing the actual positions held by myself and others on this thread, let me know.

 

[prideandfall]

. . . which exactly describes the act of grabbing someone and dragging them away against their will. Thanks for making my point and undermining yours.

how is that offensive or harmful?

 

[Jokodo]

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?

Yes, parents have legal guardianship over their children. That comes with the right (and, under specific circumstances, duty) to carry them away against their will, as it does when you have legal guardianship over an adult. It does not come with the right, let alone duty, to physically hurt them as a form of punishment.

If you ever get around to arguing the actual positions held by myself and others on this thread, let me know.

So this wasn't you?

Of course! That's why we never "punished" our kids. We explained why what they were doing was wrong, and that it would result in a spanking if they did it again. [threatening physical punishment] Then, if they did it again, we calmly reminded them of the rules, smacked them three times across the buttocks with a wooden spoon [executing physical punishment even if you put it under scare quotes], gave them a big hug, and sat down to explain and discuss the situation.[OK, so you tried to make up for it and you are still generally good people. Good on you, but I didn't claim otherwise!]

You have physically hurt your children as a form of punishment. You've said so in this thread. Using slightly different words that describe the same thing doesn't make a strawman.