Discipline for children

[Davka]

It's not special pleading. It's a clear definition, indented to stop the silly "you think spanking is sometimes acceptable therefore you think it's OK to slap a child in the face or otherwise abuse them" bullshit. I swear, the inability of posters on this thread to reason is downright frightening.

I think that knife cuts both ways. You seem to be very emotionally invested in this topic and you have to admit that that could possibly be clouding your judgement.

Possibly so. However, I'm the one here who is willing to try ti find compromise solutions, and to examine the other side's arguments. Most of my posts are countered by deliberate misrepresentations of what i have written, or by a continued refusal to admit that a distinction might exist between spanking and abuse.

The (Merriam-Webster) definition of "to spank" is "to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand". It is literally defined as striking. You might try to define a subcategory of "disciplinary spanking" to try and distinguish your particular brand of spanking, but that is not helpful against arguments that spanking (without consent ) is never OK.

Dictionary definitions are a useful starting point for discussions. What I am saying is this: When I talk about supporting the parental right to spank, I am defining "spank" in a very specific, very narrow way - more narrow, even, than most dictionaries. This definition is pretty much what you will get from any supporter of disciplinary spanking (although there are some abusive assholes out there who think it's OK to beat a kid bloody, they are the minority).

The fact that I have repeatedly said "this is what I mean by spanking" and have repeatedly been ignored tells me that something other than logic is being employed by my detractors.

As far as I can tell, arguments for spanking generally fall into categories:

1. In the context of spanking, striking a child is not a negative action.
2. In some situations, spanking is effective in ways that no other disciplinary action is, and therefore the positives outweigh the negatives. (i.e. spanking isn't OK, but in practice sometimes it's the best of bad options)
3. Spanking is a net negative, but it is a parent's prerogative to raise their children in any (legal) way they see fit.

You seem to be arguing #2. Your basic argument seems to be "it worked for me" and "all the research contrary to my position is biased".

Not quite. I'm arguing both 1 and 2. And I'm saying that I have only once seen any research which deals with actual disciplinary spanking as advocated by millions of caring, non-abusive parents. Most research fails to distinguish between beating, slapping (even on the face), and spanking. This not only demonstrates a clear bias on the part of the researchers, but also means that these are NOT examples of researching the kind of action that I have outlined here under the label "disciplinary spanking." It's not that the research is biased, it's that the research has not been done.

*Actually, it was done once. The results were counter to everything cited on this thread. Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence - This was already cited once on this thread, and for some odd reason was ignored by all the folks claiming that all research shows spanking is bad.

So here's what I'm saying:

- When I use the word, "spanking" is intended to mean a very specific, narrow set of actions.
- Only by ignoring the existence of the type of disciplinary spanking I have outlined here can researchers conclude that spanking is negative.
- There exists a powerful refusal to distinguish between Disciplinary Spanking and the undisciplined, unrestrained striking of children at any time for any reason. This refusal illustrates clearly the irrational bias of those posters who have merely responded with 'la la la I'm not listening!' arguments, followed by 'all the research is on my side!'

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, some of the arguments here are down to

"You gonna believe the studies or your own lying life experiences?"

Some?

 

[Davka]

Let's see what we get if we apply this kind of reasoning to any other domain:

What happens is that the difference between hard science and the humanities is clearly illustrated.

 

[Playball40]

And yet, I did not see that in the articles that were referenced. You seem to be drawing a line between the location of the spank. The articles seem to be implying that it is irrelevent and are referring to spanking in general.

And yet the location and circumstances are precisely what allows us to differentiate between "spanking" and "hitting." There is a reason that there are different words for different things. You don't want to admit that a difference exists, because then you'd have to admit that your argument is deeply flawed - as are those studies. The overly-broad definition in those studies applies equally to parents who spank as we did, and parents who backhand their kids and randomly hit them whenever and wherever they please.

If you still refuse to acknowledge a difference, then it's pretty clear you're not only being obtuse, but actively denying reality. Why would you do that? Why, pray tell, would so many people so desperately cling to the fiction that all loosely-related words are actually synonymous?

I'm not obtuse, I just don't agree that the location of the 'spank' makes any difference in the potentialnegative outcomes. You cannot argue that your "method" does not produce negative outcomes because clearly you cannot create a human study to that end. But just because you cannot create that study does not mean that your methods are/were harmless.

 

[Playball40]

But what you seem to be missing (or refuse to acknowledge) is that many people (including pediatricians, psychologists as mentioned in the linked articles) do not find your methods or redefinition acceptable or beneficial either. I do not believe in spanking, period. On the butt or in the face, spanking, spanking has no place. In a rage or with great thought, spanking, spanking is for naught.

I don't actually give a flying fuck what "experts" in child-rearing have to say. The bias within the child psychiatric community is clear and obvious, as exemplified by the fact that 99% of all so-called "spanking" studies deliberately define spanking so broadly that it includes all sorts of abuse. And even then, the best many of them can do is say that it is neither harmful nor helpful - a frustrating result to get when you're trying for a pre-ordained conclusion.

As for what you personally believe, that's your choice. You can raise your kids however you want. just don't try to force your beliefs on other people, mmmkay?

Wow, defensive much? How in any way am I forcing my beliefs on you? Because I disagree with you? That's your barometer? A bit narcisstic I 'reckon.

 

[Playball40]

I think that knife cuts both ways. You seem to be very emotionally invested in this topic and you have to admit that that could possibly be clouding your judgement.

Possibly so. However, I'm the one here who is willing to try ti find compromise solutions, and to examine the other side's arguments. Most of my posts are countered by deliberate misrepresentations of what i have written, or by a continued refusal to admit that a distinction might exist between spanking and abuse.

The (Merriam-Webster) definition of "to spank" is "to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand". It is literally defined as striking. You might try to define a subcategory of "disciplinary spanking" to try and distinguish your particular brand of spanking, but that is not helpful against arguments that spanking (without consent ) is never OK.

Dictionary definitions are a useful starting point for discussions. What I am saying is this: When I talk about supporting the parental right to spank, I am defining "spank" in a very specific, very narrow way - more narrow, even, than most dictionaries. This definition is pretty much what you will get from any supporter of disciplinary spanking (although there are some abusive assholes out there who think it's OK to beat a kid bloody, they are the minority).

The fact that I have repeatedly said "this is what I mean by spanking" and have repeatedly been ignored tells me that something other than logic is being employed by my detractors.

As far as I can tell, arguments for spanking generally fall into categories:

1. In the context of spanking, striking a child is not a negative action.
2. In some situations, spanking is effective in ways that no other disciplinary action is, and therefore the positives outweigh the negatives. (i.e. spanking isn't OK, but in practice sometimes it's the best of bad options)
3. Spanking is a net negative, but it is a parent's prerogative to raise their children in any (legal) way they see fit.

You seem to be arguing #2. Your basic argument seems to be "it worked for me" and "all the research contrary to my position is biased".

Not quite. I'm arguing both 1 and 2. And I'm saying that I have only once seen any research which deals with actual disciplinary spanking as advocated by millions of caring, non-abusive parents. Most research fails to distinguish between beating, slapping (even on the face), and spanking. This not only demonstrates a clear bias on the part of the researchers, but also means that these are NOT examples of researching the kind of action that I have outlined here under the label "disciplinary spanking." It's not that the research is biased, it's that the research has not been done.

*Actually, it was done once. The results were counter to everything cited on this thread. Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence - This was already cited once on this thread, and for some odd reason was ignored by all the folks claiming that all research shows spanking is bad.

So here's what I'm saying:

- When I use the word, "spanking" is intended to mean a very specific, narrow set of actions.
- Only by ignoring the existence of the type of disciplinary spanking I have outlined here can researchers conclude that spanking is negative.
- There exists a powerful refusal to distinguish between Disciplinary Spanking and the undisciplined, unrestrained striking of children at any time for any reason. This refusal illustrates clearly the irrational bias of those posters who have merely responded with 'la la la I'm not listening!' arguments, followed by 'all the research is on my side!'

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, some of the arguments here are down to

"You gonna believe the studies or your own lying life experiences?"

Some?

I've actually read his work. I just don't agree with his conclusions when compared to other scientists. Like Global Climate Change, you can agree 100% with the 1% who claim it doesn't exist, or the 99% who do. I don't care which you choose.

 

[Davka]

You may notice that Lazarlere is saying almost exactly the same thing I'm saying: that there exists a method of physical discipline - called 'spanking' by it's proponents - which is categorically different from abuse: "spanking has consistently beneficial outcomes when it is nonabusive (e.g., two swats to the buttocks with an open hand) and used primarily to back up milder disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year-olds by loving parents. . .most detrimental outcomes in causally relevant studies are due to overly frequent use of physical punishment." source

You might also read this excerpt from the previously linked article:

"The strongest causal evidence against spanking is that the frequency of customary spanking appears to predict greater antisocial behavior later even after controlling statistically for pre-existing differences. (However) in three replications, we have found similar results for all nonphysical disciplinary enforcements, and for all professional treatments for similar child behavior problems, e.e., Ritalin or child psychiatry."

 

[Davka]

I don't actually give a flying fuck what "experts" in child-rearing have to say. The bias within the child psychiatric community is clear and obvious, as exemplified by the fact that 99% of all so-called "spanking" studies deliberately define spanking so broadly that it includes all sorts of abuse. And even then, the best many of them can do is say that it is neither harmful nor helpful - a frustrating result to get when you're trying for a pre-ordained conclusion.

As for what you personally believe, that's your choice. You can raise your kids however you want. just don't try to force your beliefs on other people, mmmkay?

Wow, defensive much? How in any way am I forcing my beliefs on you? Because I disagree with you? That's your barometer? A bit narcisstic I 'reckon.

There are a number of laws on the books which have essentially criminalized spanking. These laws have been recently introduced, at the prompting of those who argue your position. Telling you not to force your beliefs on others is no different from telling Creationists the same thing, or Pro-Lifers, or any other member of a group which has succeeded in legislating their morality. Whether you personally have ever forced your beliefs on others is irrelevant - you belong to the group of people which has supported and defended this legislation.

 

[Jokodo]

Let's see what we get if we apply this kind of reasoning to any other domain:

What happens is that the difference between hard science and the humanities is clearly illustrated.

If you had actual solid evidence for your position, maybe. You don't. As imperfect as social science may be, the scientific method still is the best we can go by, and if 99% (your estimate) of the relevant research disagrees with you, the simplest explanation remains that you are wrong.

 

[Jokodo]

*Actually, it was done once. The results were counter to everything cited on this thread. Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence - This was already cited once on this thread, and for some odd reason was ignored by all the folks claiming that all research shows spanking is bad.

It wasn't ignored "for some odd reason", I very explicitly pointed out that it's an opinion piece (because that's what "letter to the editor" means) which furthermore makes a bogus argument that totally discredits what might otherwise be its strongest point. It's not a peer reviewed research article.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What happens is that the difference between hard science and the humanities is clearly illustrated.

If you had actual solid evidence for your position, maybe. You don't. As imperfect as social science may be, the scientific method still is the best we can go by, and if 99% (your estimate) of the relevant research disagrees with you, the simplest explanation remains that you are wrong.

Or that there's a vast international conspiracy of scientists who are all colluding to fake their data because they hate freedom. I bet Obama put them up to it.

 

[OLDMAN]

It's strange, we never had to spank our kids a second time....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's strange, we never had to spank our kids a second time....

Which, of course, begs the question of how necessary it was to spank them the first time.

 

[Davka]

What happens is that the difference between hard science and the humanities is clearly illustrated.

If you had actual solid evidence for your position, maybe. You don't. As imperfect as social science may be, the scientific method still is the best we can go by, and if 99% (your estimate) of the relevant research disagrees with you, the simplest explanation remains that you are wrong.

NONE of the relevant research disagrees with me. Most of the research isn't relevant to the point I am making.

- - - Updated - - -

*Actually, it was done once. The results were counter to everything cited on this thread. Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence - This was already cited once on this thread, and for some odd reason was ignored by all the folks claiming that all research shows spanking is bad.

It wasn't ignored "for some odd reason", I very explicitly pointed out that it's an opinion piece (because that's what "letter to the editor" means) which furthermore makes a bogus argument that totally discredits what might otherwise be its strongest point. It's not a peer reviewed research article.

There are these funny little things called "footnotes." The ones in that letter pointed to both published and unpublished research.

 

[Jokodo]

If you had actual solid evidence for your position, maybe. You don't. As imperfect as social science may be, the scientific method still is the best we can go by, and if 99% (your estimate) of the relevant research disagrees with you, the simplest explanation remains that you are wrong.

NONE of the relevant research disagrees with me. Most of the research isn't relevant to the point I am making.

- - - Updated - - -

*Actually, it was done once. The results were counter to everything cited on this thread. Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence - This was already cited once on this thread, and for some odd reason was ignored by all the folks claiming that all research shows spanking is bad.

It wasn't ignored "for some odd reason", I very explicitly pointed out that it's an opinion piece (because that's what "letter to the editor" means) which furthermore makes a bogus argument that totally discredits what might otherwise be its strongest point. It's not a peer reviewed research article.

There are these funny little things called "footnotes." The ones in that letter pointed to both published and unpublished research.

If you've looked at any of that research and found it relevant, you can point us directly to those papers. I'm not doing your work for you, especially since that opinion piece even admits to coming to different conclusions than some of the work he cites (without as much as hinting as to where those other people might have gone wrong).

 

[Davka]

eek! Evidence? Make it stopp!!1!1!!

 

[Playball40]

You may notice that Lazarlere is saying almost exactly the same thing I'm saying: that there exists a method of physical discipline - called 'spanking' by it's proponents - which is categorically different from abuse: "spanking has consistently beneficial outcomes when it is nonabusive (e.g., two swats to the buttocks with an open hand) and used primarily to back up milder disciplinary tactics with 2- to 6-year-olds by loving parents. . .most detrimental outcomes in causally relevant studies are due to overly frequent use of physical punishment." source

You might also read this excerpt from the previously linked article:

"The strongest causal evidence against spanking is that the frequency of customary spanking appears to predict greater antisocial behavior later even after controlling statistically for pre-existing differences. (However) in three replications, we have found similar results for all nonphysical disciplinary enforcements, and for all professional treatments for similar child behavior problems, e.e., Ritalin or child psychiatry."

I'm sorry, but it's disgusting to hit, spank, swat, or whatever you want to call it A TWO YEAR OLD. A child that age is JUST BEGINNING to realize they are a separate being from their parents (some don't even realize it at that age). They are just learning that they can actually control their environment and someone wants to SPANK them for that? It's just disgusting.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, defensive much? How in any way am I forcing my beliefs on you? Because I disagree with you? That's your barometer? A bit narcisstic I 'reckon.

There are a number of laws on the books which have essentially criminalized spanking. These laws have been recently introduced, at the prompting of those who argue your position. Telling you not to force your beliefs on others is no different from telling Creationists the same thing, or Pro-Lifers, or any other member of a group which has succeeded in legislating their morality. Whether you personally have ever forced your beliefs on others is irrelevant - you belong to the group of people which has supported and defended this legislation.

Did I enact that legislation?

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, defensive much? How in any way am I forcing my beliefs on you? Because I disagree with you? That's your barometer? A bit narcisstic I 'reckon.

There are a number of laws on the books which have essentially criminalized spanking. These laws have been recently introduced, at the prompting of those who argue your position. Telling you not to force your beliefs on others is no different from telling Creationists the same thing, or Pro-Lifers, or any other member of a group which has succeeded in legislating their morality. Whether you personally have ever forced your beliefs on others is irrelevant - you belong to the group of people which has supported and defended this legislation.

Actually, no I don't.

- - - Updated - - -

If you had actual solid evidence for your position, maybe. You don't. As imperfect as social science may be, the scientific method still is the best we can go by, and if 99% (your estimate) of the relevant research disagrees with you, the simplest explanation remains that you are wrong.

NONE of the relevant research disagrees with me. Most of the research isn't relevant to the point I am making.

- - - Updated - - -

*Actually, it was done once. The results were counter to everything cited on this thread. Disciplinary Spanking: The Scientific Evidence - This was already cited once on this thread, and for some odd reason was ignored by all the folks claiming that all research shows spanking is bad.

It wasn't ignored "for some odd reason", I very explicitly pointed out that it's an opinion piece (because that's what "letter to the editor" means) which furthermore makes a bogus argument that totally discredits what might otherwise be its strongest point. It's not a peer reviewed research article.

There are these funny little things called "footnotes." The ones in that letter pointed to both published and unpublished research.

Much of his research is his own, ya know.

 

[Jokodo]

eek! Evidence? Make it stopp!!1!1!!

Get a mirror.

 

[fromderinside]

Davka, Jokodo, go to your rooms!!

...and that's the way I discipline children.

 

[Kharakov]

My friends who received spankings were more prone to using violence to solve problems, those that did not were not as prone to use violence.

This seems to be a common theme- when someone learns that violence can be used to shape behaviors, they use violence to shape behaviors. Now, I wasn't spanked past the age of 5, although I generally wanted to make my parents happy (until I was a teenager) because I loved them (except for a period of time while I was a teenager, when every single action they took was oppressive and evil- luckily they grew out of it).

 

[Emily Lake]

If you had actual solid evidence for your position, maybe. You don't. As imperfect as social science may be, the scientific method still is the best we can go by, and if 99% (your estimate) of the relevant research disagrees with you, the simplest explanation remains that you are wrong.

Or that there's a vast international conspiracy of scientists who are all colluding to fake their data because they hate freedom. I bet Obama put them up to it.

Hmm. Something like that vast conspiracy of scientists who colluded to define (and research to prove) homosexuality as a mental disorder?