Discipline for children

[credoconsolans]

But you're ignoring free will. They're letting you do that. You're not forcing them at all.

Unlike a child.

It's hardly ever necessary, who always eats a lot. But more to the point: Prisons are occupied by adults. By saying "like a prison" to some treatment you earlier claimed was reserved only for children, you shoot down your own argument. Because in that case this treatment is already not parallel to spanking: if a prison administration spanks their inmates "as a form of disciplines" or otherwise, it's considered torture in civilised countries.

credoconsolans said: Not at all, the posters keep avoiding free will.

Children don't have it.

Jokodo said: I'm not at all sure what you mean with "free will", but if it's supposed to be relevant at this point of the discussion

It's relevant because adults have free will. They're expected to be responsible for their own actions.

If they follow the law and do nothing illegal, you can't put them in jail, you can't force them to follow your lesson plan in school.

You cannot force them to do anything they don't agree with.

Children are different.

Understand now? Adults =/= children.

You at least have to recognise that your argument of "there's all these other things that are exactly parallel to spanking in that we can do them to children but not adults" falls apart at this point though. Because all those other things can be done to adults under exceptional circumstances while spanking still can't.

How does it? I don't see that it does.

When you come up with a list of things that you claim are parallel in that we are allowed to do them to kids but not to adults and it turns out that all of those other things can be done to adults with diminuished legal rights (i.e. prison inmates) or mental capacities (i.e. Alzheimer patients) or both, but not spanking, than those other things are no longer parallel to spanking. It could hardly get any clearer than that.

I just pointed out how your examples don't apply. Free will of adults. If I don't break the law, you can't force me into prison where you control my actions. Alzheimers patients? You still do not treat them like children because they're adults, you can't just force them to do something. They had to give you PERMISSION (consent) to do so.

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter a thing if adults in general have "free will" and children don't...

Excuse me? That is EXACTLY the point. You cannot compare the two.

 

[fromderinside]

Dancer's don't get "participation trophies" so I don't know how pervasive this practice is. Do you have examples of older, more experienced sports players receiving "participation trophies"?

Players on the Toronto Maple Leafs get millions of dollars every year despite rarely, if ever, showing any ability to play hockey.

Does that count?

NO. It just shows that everyone is judged in comparison with their competition, in Toronto's case Montreal. I suggest some French would help those poor Maple Leafs. After all aren't they actually Canadians too.

 

[Jokodo]

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter a thing if adults in general have "free will" and children don't...

Excuse me? That is EXACTLY the point. You cannot compare the two.

The only relevant way in which children are different from your typical adult is that a child is not an independent legal persona and as a guardian oversee its interactions with the outside world. Therefore we cannot compare children and typical adults, but we can compare children with adults who are not independent legal personas and have a guardian oversee their actions. And when we do so, unsurprisingly we find that indeed the treatment is very much parallel - except (for those spanking children is OK) that you can't spank them.

You can try and make an independent argument for why acts against children should be specifically exempt from the general indiction against corporal punishment, but simply saying "they are children, children are oh so different in all kinds of ways" doesn't work.

 

[credoconsolans]

Excuse me? That is EXACTLY the point. You cannot compare the two.

The only relevant way in which children are different from your typical adult is that a child is not an independent legal persona and as a guardian oversee its interactions with the outside world. Therefore we cannot compare children and typical adults, but we can compare children with adults who are not independent legal personas and have a guardian oversee their actions. And when we do so, unsurprisingly we find that indeed the treatment is very much parallel - except (for those spanking children is OK) that you can't spank them.

You can try and make an independent argument for why acts against children should be specifically exempt from the general indiction against corporal punishment, but simply saying "they are children, children are oh so different in all kinds of ways" doesn't work.

Try physiological as well. Children do not have the same mature brain development as adults. They have less coping mechanisms, they have less understanding of basically everything. You cannot compare them to an adult.

 

[fromderinside]

The only relevant way in which children are different from your typical adult is that a child is not an independent legal persona and as a guardian oversee its interactions with the outside world. Therefore we cannot compare children and typical adults, but we can compare children with adults who are not independent legal personas and have a guardian oversee their actions. And when we do so, unsurprisingly we find that indeed the treatment is very much parallel - except (for those spanking children is OK) that you can't spank them.

You can try and make an independent argument for why acts against children should be specifically exempt from the general indiction against corporal punishment, but simply saying "they are children, children are oh so different in all kinds of ways" doesn't work.

Try physiological as well. Children do not have the same mature brain development as adults. They have less coping mechanisms, they have less understanding of basically everything. You cannot compare them to an adult.

Humans are beasts with those with whom they are charged. Given all those criteria haw does one justify all that collar pulling, shouting, spanking, and rough play, caging, storing, etc., with pets like dogs and cats. Its even worse with permanently caged like fish, birds, hamsters etc. The point is humans evolved with physical responses to child perceived misbehavior. What good is going to do now to be socially correct with children now in the long run? Don't you think we'll soon get back to scraping for resources just to survive? Seems to me we should be practicing best physical responses with children rather than withholding physical treatment of them. Sure behaviorists showed is was bad stuff to punish. they claimed we don't really learn under such regimes. But behaviorism has been discredited - thank you Dr. Wilson and co - so why follow such unnatural advice.

 

[Frikki]

The only relevant way in which children are different from your typical adult is that a child is not an independent legal persona and as a guardian oversee its interactions with the outside world. Therefore we cannot compare children and typical adults, but we can compare children with adults who are not independent legal personas and have a guardian oversee their actions. And when we do so, unsurprisingly we find that indeed the treatment is very much parallel - except (for those spanking children is OK) that you can't spank them.

You can try and make an independent argument for why acts against children should be specifically exempt from the general indiction against corporal punishment, but simply saying "they are children, children are oh so different in all kinds of ways" doesn't work.

Try physiological as well. Children do not have the same mature brain development as adults. They have less coping mechanisms, they have less understanding of basically everything. You cannot compare them to an adult.

And therefore it is ok to smack them around?

 

[rousseau]

Try physiological as well. Children do not have the same mature brain development as adults. They have less coping mechanisms, they have less understanding of basically everything. You cannot compare them to an adult.

And therefore it is ok to smack them around?

"They have less understanding of basically everything" therefore we spank them makes no sense at all. One needs to have an understanding of why they're being spanked for the spanking to have any long-term effect on behavior. If they don't, it makes even less sense to spank them. It's actually a very good argument of why you shouldn't spank your kids.

Now, if the receiver were an adult hitting (or spanking, whatever) them would make a little more sense because the punishment might actually make it into their long-term memory and deter future bad behavior. It would still be psychologically damaging as all hell, but it would actually be effective.

The only reason why spanking gets a pass is because kids have no recourse to defend themselves.

 

[Jokodo]

The only relevant way in which children are different from your typical adult is that a child is not an independent legal persona and as a guardian oversee its interactions with the outside world. Therefore we cannot compare children and typical adults, but we can compare children with adults who are not independent legal personas and have a guardian oversee their actions. And when we do so, unsurprisingly we find that indeed the treatment is very much parallel - except (for those spanking children is OK) that you can't spank them.

You can try and make an independent argument for why acts against children should be specifically exempt from the general indiction against corporal punishment, but simply saying "they are children, children are oh so different in all kinds of ways" doesn't work.

Try physiological as well. Children do not have the same mature brain development as adults. They have less coping mechanisms, they have less understanding of basically everything. You cannot compare them to an adult.

To the extent that those differences are relevant to a legal argument, they could only possibly work as arguments against spanking children even if we were to allow spanking inmates and Alzheimer patients which we currently don't.

 

[fromderinside]

To the extent that those differences are relevant to a legal argument, they could only possibly work as arguments against spanking children even if we were to allow spanking inmates and Alzheimer patients which we currently don't.

We currently don't?

1. Prisoners: "The Crime of punishment: Pelican Bay Maximum Security Prison" http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CrimePunish_Pelican.html

2. Alzheimers: Elder Abuse:The size of the problem http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/

Our problems are that our institutions are out of date with respect to our current operating moral codes. As I mentioned before our research is out of sync with what goes on within the animal kingdoms of social animals. I believe this is mainly because humans are currently operating outside constraints that apply to most who are controlled by fitness.

Our behaviors tend to reflect our urges rather than our intellects and social consciousnesses. Some ehaviors will change over time, but punishment doesn't seem to be among those that are currently responding to social pressures as did knife usage (see Pinker's "Better Angels")

 

[Jokodo]

To the extent that those differences are relevant to a legal argument, they could only possibly work as arguments against spanking children even if we were to allow spanking inmates and Alzheimer patients which we currently don't.

We currently don't?

1. Prisoners: "The Crime of punishment: Pelican Bay Maximum Security Prison" http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CrimePunish_Pelican.html

2. Alzheimers: Elder Abuse:The size of the problem http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/

Thanks for making my point: I didn't say nobody is using corporal punishment against inmates or Alzheimer patients, but that we don't allow it, i.e. when it happens, it goes against our societal moral and legal codes - and accodingly, your links speak of "Crime" and "Abuse".

 

[rousseau]

To the extent that those differences are relevant to a legal argument, they could only possibly work as arguments against spanking children even if we were to allow spanking inmates and Alzheimer patients which we currently don't.

We currently don't?

1. Prisoners: "The Crime of punishment: Pelican Bay Maximum Security Prison" http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CrimePunish_Pelican.html

2. Alzheimers: Elder Abuse:The size of the problem http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/

Our problems are that our institutions are out of date with respect to our current operating moral codes. As I mentioned before our research is out of sync with what goes on within the animal kingdoms of social animals. I believe this is mainly because humans are currently operating outside constraints that apply to most who are controlled by fitness.

Our behaviors tend to reflect our urges rather than our intellects and social consciousnesses. Some ehaviors will change over time, but punishment doesn't seem to be among those that are currently responding to social pressures as did knife usage (see Pinker's "Better Angels")

Physical discipline being a normal 'urge' isn't a valid argument as to why it should be legal or accepted. One could argue that violence itself is a normal 'urge', but we've made it unlawful in a huge number of contexts, so why not in the context of disciplining our children? The whole concept of law is to regulate our anti-social behaviors.

Even if you don't want to make it illegal, at least acknowledge that it's a bad idea, as has been evidenced over and over again.

 

[Emily Lake]

"They have less understanding of basically everything" therefore we spank them makes no sense at all. One needs to have an understanding of why they're being spanked for the spanking to have any long-term effect on behavior. If they don't, it makes even less sense to spank them. It's actually a very good argument of why you shouldn't spank your kids.

I'm not sure I agree with your logic. That you have reached a given conclusion is certain, and you are free to believe whatever you wish with regard to spanking. I simply don't believe that your argument supports that conclusion.

Consider: Very young children don't understand pretty much anything. They don't understand why they're not allowed to yank the cat's tail whenever they wish to. They don't understand why they can't have cake for every meal. They don't understand why they don't get to say bad words just like daddy. They don't understand why they're not allowed to drive. They don't understand why they can't bite or throw rocks or poop in the middle of the carpet. There's any number of things that they don't understand at all.

If understanding is required in order to provide discipline, then by your logic, no discipline at all is allowed.

A very young child will not understand why they're being placed in time out any more than they'll understand why they've received a sharp swat on the bottom. They won't understand why they're toy has been taken away from them. No disciplinary approach will make any more sense than spanking will.

I submit, however, that spanking may in some cases (certainly not all, and certainly not for all children) provide a more effective and memorable deterrent than time outs or loss of toys or other privileges may. Pain avoidance is a very strong, intrinsically hard-wired instinct for all animals, so far as I know. The pain should of course not be catastrophic, it shouldn't be damaging. And as I've said, it certainly isn't for all cases. If a less drastic approach works for your child, then by all means use that approach. And if you personally prefer not to spank your child, then don't.

I don't however, see a solid logical argument that supports forcing your belief in this regard on other people.

 

[laughing dog]

"They have less understanding of basically everything" therefore we spank them makes no sense at all. One needs to have an understanding of why they're being spanked for the spanking to have any long-term effect on behavior. If they don't, it makes even less sense to spank them. It's actually a very good argument of why you shouldn't spank your kids.

I'm not sure I agree with your logic. That you have reached a given conclusion is certain, and you are free to believe whatever you wish with regard to spanking. I simply don't believe that your argument supports that conclusion.

Consider: Very young children don't understand pretty much anything. They don't understand why they're not allowed to yank the cat's tail whenever they wish to. They don't understand why they can't have cake for every meal. They don't understand why they don't get to say bad words just like daddy. They don't understand why they're not allowed to drive. They don't understand why they can't bite or throw rocks or poop in the middle of the carpet. There's any number of things that they don't understand at all.

If understanding is required in order to provide discipline, then by your logic, no discipline at all is allowed.

A very young child will not understand why they're being placed in time out any more than they'll understand why they've received a sharp swat on the bottom. They won't understand why they're toy has been taken away from them. No disciplinary approach will make any more sense than spanking will.

I submit, however, that spanking may in some cases (certainly not all, and certainly not for all children) provide a more effective and memorable deterrent than time outs or loss of toys or other privileges may. Pain avoidance is a very strong, intrinsically hard-wired instinct for all animals, so far as I know. The pain should of course not be catastrophic, it shouldn't be damaging. And as I've said, it certainly isn't for all cases. If a less drastic approach works for your child, then by all means use that approach. And if you personally prefer not to spank your child, then don't.

I don't however, see a solid logical argument that supports forcing your belief in this regard on other people.

Your entire response confuses spanking with discipline. Children can be disciplined without resorting to violence and they will "get it". Sometimes it takes a bit longer to get through, but it works.

 

[RavenSky]

I saw this earlier today and was tempted to post it, but didn't want to be the one to revive such a contentious thread. Then I log in to find it back on the front page, so...

http://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/psychology-of-spanking/

Professional Opinion


The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child defines physical punishment that causes any degree of pain and discomfort (even light) to be abuse. They argue that eliminating corporal punishment of children is “a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies”


The American Academy of Pediatrics advises against spanking because the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits.


A meta-analysis of 88 scientific studies over 62 years found a remarkable 94% consensus that spanking is associated significantly with undesirable behaviors and experiences:


decreased moral internalization
increased child aggression
increased child delinquent and antisocial behavior
decreased quality of relationship between parent and child
decreased child mental health
increased risk of being a victim of physical abuse
increased adult aggression
increased adult criminal and antisocial behavior
decreased adult mental health
increased risk of abusing own child or spouse


Spanking is associated with only one desirable behavior:
increased immediate compliance

The Effects of Spanking as a Child

Spanked children become more aggressive

Aggression is defined as:
argumentative
disobedient
cruel/mean/teases/threatens
destroys things
physically attacks people
screams/unusually loud
Children who are spanked less than twice a month at age 3 are 17% more likely to be aggressive at age 5.
Children who are spanked more than twice a month at age 3 are 49% more likely to be aggressive at age 5.

The results controlled for
Child’s aggression at age 3
Family demographics
Psychological maltreatment of child
Neglect of child
Partner aggression
Parenting stress
Major depression
Use of drugs and/or alcohol
Considered aborting the child

“… the child learns to be aggressive by being treated directly with aggression.”

there's more at the website

 

[fromderinside]

Eliminate all physical hurt by kin because it hurts?

WTF

We are fit because we survive. Eliminating one of the more central parts of what it takes to survive, dealing with pain administered by kin, seems fraught with survival risk.*

*^{_{I got to kin because it is the least lethal source for receiving painful stimuli. Feeling pain is there as an evolutionary signal to act or react built way down the in the core of hierarchies for signals, senses, twitches and squirts.}}

 

[Playball40]

Eliminate all physical hurt by kin because it hurts?

WTF

We are fit because we survive. Eliminating one of the more central parts of what it takes to survive, dealing with pain administered by kin, seems fraught with survival risk.*

*^{_{I got to kin because it is the least lethal source for receiving painful stimuli. Feeling pain is there as an evolutionary signal to act or react built way down the in the core of hierarchies for signals, senses, twitches and squirts.}}

Yes, pain helps with our survival. Burning your finger on a hot stove tells us not to do that again. However, all spanking "teaches" is that assault solves problems and forces compliance. Is this really what we want children to grow up believing?

 

[fromderinside]

Eliminate all physical hurt by kin because it hurts?

WTF

We are fit because we survive. Eliminating one of the more central parts of what it takes to survive, dealing with pain administered by kin, seems fraught with survival risk.*

*^{_{I got to kin because it is the least lethal source for receiving painful stimuli. Feeling pain is there as an evolutionary signal to act or react built way down the in the core of hierarchies for signals, senses, twitches and squirts.}}

Yes, pain helps with our survival. Burning your finger on a hot stove tells us not to do that again. However, all spanking "teaches" is that assault solves problems and forces compliance. Is this really what we want children to grow up believing?

No dear. I want my children to know what pain is before they experience it while being attacked by your dog.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, pain helps with our survival. Burning your finger on a hot stove tells us not to do that again. However, all spanking "teaches" is that assault solves problems and forces compliance. Is this really what we want children to grow up believing?

No dear. I want my children to know what pain is before they experience it while being attacked by your dog.

You are going to spank a child so they won't get bit by a dog? That doesn't even make rational sense, so I hope you are joking.

 

[fromderinside]

No dear. I want my children to know what pain is before they experience it while being attacked by your dog.

You are going to spank a child so they won't get bit by a dog? That doesn't even make rational sense, so I hope you are joking.

No. I'm not that linear. Children aren't ducklings. They don't learn their parents by imprinting, they learn by constructing scenarios, pathways, plans, solutions, like that. Behaviorism was compelling because it captured some essence of how we seemed to work. Evolutionary neuroscience is compelling because it ties evolution with defining metrics against which to evaluate evolutionary and behavioral change. Spanking is compelling because it gets right at an alerting and withdrawal, a successful flee mechanism.

If you don't think that our being a top predator isn't due to our ability to replicate and extend violence. Sure its not all that good during times of supply surplus or equity, but, its at the base of what we used to get here and it will be again when we deplete that which we exploit now.

 

[RavenSky]

You are going to spank a child so they won't get bit by a dog? That doesn't even make rational sense, so I hope you are joking.

No. I'm not that linear. Children aren't ducklings. They don't learn their parents by imprinting, they learn by constructing scenarios, pathways, plans, solutions, like that. Behaviorism was compelling because it captured some essence of how we seemed to work. Evolutionary neuroscience is compelling because it ties evolution with defining metrics against which to evaluate evolutionary and behavioral change. Spanking is compelling because it gets right at an alerting and withdrawal, a successful flee mechanism.

If you don't think that our being a top predator isn't due to our ability to replicate and extend violence. Sure its not all that good during times of supply surplus or equity, but, its at the base of what we used to get here and it will be again when we deplete that which we exploit now.

The research says that you are wrong on the bolded