Discipline for children

[Emily Lake]

Does what say that what is what? I'm sorry, Playball40, but your response is very nonspecific, and I am uncertain to what it is intended to refer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not necessarily because inflicting pain is particularly onerous. In fact, it may make it more difficult for the child to understand why he or she is being disciplined because he/she may focus on the pain.

Do you have reason to believe that physical pain is less trauma-inducing and confusing than mental anguish? You have a very large number of unsupported "may" statements in there.

Maybe I missed where laughing dog stated so, but could you quote where he said verbal and/or psychological abuse was an effective and less harmful method of discipline?

 

[laughing dog]

Not necessarily because inflicting pain is particularly onerous. In fact, it may make it more difficult for the child to understand why he or she is being disciplined because he/she may focus on the pain.

Do you have reason to believe that physical pain is less trauma-inducing and confusing than mental anguish?

No.

You have a very large number of unsupported "may" statements in there.

Not as many as you do in your arguments.

Conversely, some non-physical discipline, such as yelling, name-calling, and other verbal and mental abuse, is also the result of poor self-control rather than some calculated punishment or consequence. Unless you have well-supported reasons to believe that every case of a parent yelling at a child, sending a child to their room, or cases of withholding toys, entertainment, deserts, or other pleasures are always well-thought-out and controlled actions on the part of the adults in questions, your observation is irrelevant.

Even if they are not, they do not leave physical marks or pain. It is pretty clear to me that you have not reared children.

 

[credoconsolans]

Do you have reason to believe that physical pain is less trauma-inducing and confusing than mental anguish?

No.

You have a very large number of unsupported "may" statements in there.

Not as many as you do in your arguments.

Conversely, some non-physical discipline, such as yelling, name-calling, and other verbal and mental abuse, is also the result of poor self-control rather than some calculated punishment or consequence. Unless you have well-supported reasons to believe that every case of a parent yelling at a child, sending a child to their room, or cases of withholding toys, entertainment, deserts, or other pleasures are always well-thought-out and controlled actions on the part of the adults in questions, your observation is irrelevant.

Even if they are not, they do not leave physical marks or pain. It is pretty clear to me that you have not reared children.

Uh, verbal and emotional abuse most certainly does.

 

[fromderinside]

Uh, verbal and emotional abuse most certainly does.

Naw. If that were the case there would be over 60,000 clinical psychologists in APA. Oh, wait .....


The number practicing psychologists are there in the united states http://www.apa.org/support/about/psych/numbers-us.aspx#answer.

APA's Center for Workforce Studies estimates that there are 93,000 practicing psychologists in the United States. Licensed psychologists totaled approximately 85,000 in 2004. Graduations average 4,000-5,000 per year and approximately 2,700 of those are in health service provider fields, resulting in an additional 8,100 practicing psychologists.

Profiles by division http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.aspx

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you have reason to believe that physical pain is less trauma-inducing and confusing than mental anguish? You have a very large number of unsupported "may" statements in there.

Maybe I missed where laughing dog stated so, but could you quote where he said verbal and/or psychological abuse was an effective and less harmful method of discipline?

In regard to the snippet you've chosen here, I do not refer to mental or psychological abuse at all.

In regard to the portion of my post to which you must be referring, but chose not to quote, I did not exclusively limit the discussion to abuse. I included abuse among many other non-abusive forms of non-physical punishment.

The net result of this is that you're attempting to artificially compare apples and oranges. You allow any and all physical discipline of a child to be considered "abuse", regardless of whether that's a reasonable definition or not. Yet when talking about non-physical discipline, you have ignored all of the interactions I mentioned except the mention of abuse.

I would prefer some consistency. If all physical contacts in discipline are abusive, then all verbal contacts should also be considered abusive. If you consider that not all verbal contacts are abusive, then you should consider that not all physical contacts are abusive. If a spectrum exists for one, then it should logically exist for the other.

 

[The AntiChris]

If all physical contacts in discipline are abusive...

Who has argued this? For example, who has argued/asserted that the physical restraint of anybody (adult or child) for their own safety is abuse?

As far as I'm aware, all that's been argued is that physical contact with the intention to cause pain/shock is abusive.

 

[laughing dog]

No.

You have a very large number of unsupported "may" statements in there.

Not as many as you do in your arguments.

Conversely, some non-physical discipline, such as yelling, name-calling, and other verbal and mental abuse, is also the result of poor self-control rather than some calculated punishment or consequence. Unless you have well-supported reasons to believe that every case of a parent yelling at a child, sending a child to their room, or cases of withholding toys, entertainment, deserts, or other pleasures are always well-thought-out and controlled actions on the part of the adults in questions, your observation is irrelevant.

Even if they are not, they do not leave physical marks or pain. It is pretty clear to me that you have not reared children.

Uh, verbal and emotional abuse most certainly does.

Explain how verbal and emotional abuse leaves physical marks.

 

[fromderinside]

As far as I'm aware, all that's been argued is that physical contact with the intention to cause pain/shock is abusive.

Refer back to Ravensky's post http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2621-Discipline-for-children&p=93212&viewfull=1#post93212

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”

This statement was extended by me to 'any contact' make it obvious they were on a slippery slope when talking about physical acts such as spanking or corporal punishment and linking such with pain or discomfort. Soon one can interpose 'unwanted' (child view) for 'corrective' or 'punishment' (authority view) and 'touching' for spanking.

All of these forms have been used from one perspective or another over the past half century.

So you can say I've argued any contact and unwanted contact instead of corporal or necessary or appropriate punishment since they both lie on interactive and degree continuum.

My view is it is in our nature to use physical, verbal, and temporal means to 'instruct' our children. Any construction for discipline need have its parameters worked out very carefully before that construction becomes a norm for any society. I think some physical, mental, and environmental control mechanisms can and should be applied to those for whom we are charged to help get to productivity.

I'm just not satisfied with our current discussion whether physical treatments should be sanctioned out of existence for our use in getting children to productivity. I see it focusing on authority, punishment, versus support for those responsible for doing the getting to productivity work. Instead we should encourage, reward, those who produce productive adults with tokens and encouragement without use of physical or coercive means.

 

[credoconsolans]

No.

You have a very large number of unsupported "may" statements in there.

Not as many as you do in your arguments.

Conversely, some non-physical discipline, such as yelling, name-calling, and other verbal and mental abuse, is also the result of poor self-control rather than some calculated punishment or consequence. Unless you have well-supported reasons to believe that every case of a parent yelling at a child, sending a child to their room, or cases of withholding toys, entertainment, deserts, or other pleasures are always well-thought-out and controlled actions on the part of the adults in questions, your observation is irrelevant.

Even if they are not, they do not leave physical marks or pain. It is pretty clear to me that you have not reared children.

Uh, verbal and emotional abuse most certainly does.

Explain how verbal and emotional abuse leaves physical marks.

See that word? The "physical marks OR pain"?

There you go.

 

[Jokodo]

Refer back to Ravensky's post http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2621-Discipline-for-children&p=93212&viewfull=1#post93212

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”

This statement was extended by me to 'any contact' make it obvious they were on a slippery slope when talking about physical acts such as spanking or corporal punishment and linking such with pain or discomfort. Soon one can interpose 'unwanted' (child view) for 'corrective' or 'punishment' (authority view) and 'touching' for spanking.

All of these forms have been used from one perspective or another over the past half century.

So you can say I've argued any contact and unwanted contact instead of corporal or necessary or appropriate punishment since they both lie on interactive and degree continuum.

My view is it is in our nature to use physical, verbal, and temporal means to 'instruct' our children. Any construction for discipline need have its parameters worked out very carefully before that construction becomes a norm for any society. I think some physical, mental, and environmental control mechanisms can and should be applied to those for whom we are charged to help get to productivity.

I'm just not satisfied with our current discussion whether physical treatments should be sanctioned out of existence for our use in getting children to productivity. I see it focusing on authority, punishment, versus support for those responsible for doing the getting to productivity work. Instead we should encourage, reward, those who produce productive adults with tokens and encouragement without use of physical or coercive means.

In other words, you were strawmanning the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and implicitly suggesting that anyone who argues against spanking is arguing for your strawman version of the Committee's stance.

Good job!

 

[The AntiChris]

Refer back to Ravensky's post http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2621-Discipline-for-children&p=93212&viewfull=1#post93212

Nothing in what you've quoted supports Emily Lakes's implied accusation that what's being argued is: "all physical contacts in discipline are abusive".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe I missed where laughing dog stated so, but could you quote where he said verbal and/or psychological abuse was an effective and less harmful method of discipline?

In regard to the snippet you've chosen here, I do not refer to mental or psychological abuse at all.

I apologize. I forget you use the Muiridi Dictionary, which has wildly different meanings to words and terms like "mental anguish" than people typically use. I need to reinstall the Firefox Add-on to be able to keep up with that.

The net result of this is that you're attempting to artificially compare apples and oranges. You allow any and all physical discipline of a child to be considered "abuse", regardless of whether that's a reasonable definition or not. Yet when talking about non-physical discipline, you have ignored all of the interactions I mentioned except the mention of abuse.

I would prefer some consistency. If all physical contacts in discipline are abusive, then all verbal contacts should also be considered abusive. If you consider that not all verbal contacts are abusive, then you should consider that not all physical contacts are abusive. If a spectrum exists for one, then it should logically exist for the other.

Intentionally hitting your child can be interpreted by some, reasonably, as abuse. Telling your child to go to their room to think about what they did wrong can not be interpreted by anyone reasonably (well maybe except Beatniks) as abuse.

 

[fromderinside]

In other words, you were strawmanning the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, and implicitly suggesting that anyone who argues against spanking is arguing for your strawman version of the Committee's stance.

Good job!

Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Refer back to Ravensky's post http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2621-Discipline-for-children&p=93212&viewfull=1#post93212

Nothing in what you've quoted supports Emily Lakes's implied accusation that what's being argued is: "all physical contacts in discipline are abusive".

You are't taking the potential child's view of things into account.

 

[Emily Lake]

If all physical contacts in discipline are abusive...

Who has argued this? For example, who has argued/asserted that the physical restraint of anybody (adult or child) for their own safety is abuse?

As far as I'm aware, all that's been argued is that physical contact with the intention to cause pain/shock is abusive.

Ravensky has argued for this, and has provided definitions from the UN in support of that definition. It has been quoted several times, but I will quote it again. That position has been echoed by several other posters.

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”

Using the definition above, any degree of physical contact that causes even very light discomfort is considered abuse. That would include physical restraint - which would be light discomfort. Beyond that, I specified in discipline.

 

[The AntiChris]

Who has argued this? For example, who has argued/asserted that the physical restraint of anybody (adult or child) for their own safety is abuse?

As far as I'm aware, all that's been argued is that physical contact with the intention to cause pain/shock is abusive.

Ravensky has argued for this...

Then you should be able to produce a quote which directly and unambiguously supports your view that what is being defended is the idea that "all physical contacts in discipline are abusive". I'm confident, having followed this thread, that you can't.

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”

Using the definition above, any degree of physical contact that causes even very light discomfort is considered abuse. That would include physical restraint - which would be light discomfort. Beyond that, I specified in discipline.

I see, this is your escape clause.

What you're strongly implying is that "physical restraint" and "punishment" are synonymous. This is not in line with the common usage of these words (check any decent dictionary).

Just think about it for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that the UN committee on the Rights of the Child are saying that any use of physical restraint in order to secure the safety of a child is "abuse"? If you are, then I suspect you're incapable of rational discussion on this topic.

 

[Emily Lake]

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”

Using the definition above, any degree of physical contact that causes even very light discomfort is considered abuse. That would include physical restraint - which would be light discomfort. Beyond that, I specified in discipline.

I see, this is your escape clause.

What you're strongly implying is that "physical restraint" and "punishment" are synonymous. This is not in line with the common usage of these words (check any decent dictionary).

Just think about it for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that the UN committee on the Rights of the Child are saying that any use of physical restraint in order to secure the safety of a child is "abuse"? If you are, then I suspect you're incapable of rational discussion on this topic.

Personally, I think that the UN is off their rocker with that definition anyway. The fact that they're defining ANY physical punishment that causes ANY degree of discomfort to be abuse is frankly asinine. Under that definition, then physical restraint used as punishment that causes mild discomfort constitutes abuse. I did not make the definition, I did not propose the definition, and I most assuredly don't support such a ridiculous definition.

It is clear, however, that many other people in this thread have said that any physical punishment of any sort is abuse, no matter how light. Of course, they all want special pleading that they're only talking about "hitting". And of course, they all make sure to refer to it as "hitting" rather than "spanking".

As far as "securing the safety of the child goes" that's a strawman - that's your argument, not mine. You've introduced that angle, all on your own. I was clear in my initiating post that it was "physical contacts in discipline". I then reiterated that in my response to you, and once again stated that it was in the context of discipline. You are conflating discipline with "securing safety" when the two aren't even remotely similar.

So kindly keep your argument within the bounds of my context.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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”

Using the definition above, any degree of physical contact that causes even very light discomfort is considered abuse. That would include physical restraint - which would be light discomfort. Beyond that, I specified in discipline.

I see, this is your escape clause.

What you're strongly implying is that "physical restraint" and "punishment" are synonymous. This is not in line with the common usage of these words (check any decent dictionary).

Just think about it for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that the UN committee on the Rights of the Child are saying that any use of physical restraint in order to secure the safety of a child is "abuse"? If you are, then I suspect you're incapable of rational discussion on this topic.

Personally, I think that the UN is off their rocker with that definition anyway. The fact that they're defining ANY physical punishment that causes ANY degree of discomfort to be abuse is frankly asinine. Under that definition, then physical restraint used as punishment that causes mild discomfort constitutes abuse.

Speak about off the rocker. What in the heck is a "physical restraint" method of punishment?

I did not make the definition, I did not propose the definition, and I most assuredly don't support such a ridiculous definition.

Actually, you did extrapolate an off the rocker interpretation of an otherwise pretty straight forward definition.

It is clear, however, that many other people in this thread have said that any physical punishment of any sort is abuse, no matter how light. Of course, they all want special pleading that they're only talking about "hitting". And of course, they all make sure to refer to it as "hitting" rather than "spanking".

For a person that likes widening the definitions of words, not considering spanking to be hitting is out of character.

 

[The AntiChris]

Just think about it for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that the UN committee on the Rights of the Child are saying that any use of physical restraint in order to secure the safety of a child is "abuse"? If you are, then I suspect you're incapable of rational discussion on this topic.

Personally, I think ......

I didn't expect you to answer my question. I'm still disappointed.

 

[Emily Lake]

What in the heck is a "physical restraint" method of punishment?

I suppose you should ask The AntiChris. It was he who introduced that concept, not I.

not considering spanking to be hitting is out of character.

You're baiting up the wrong tree.

Go back and look, prior to tossing around such goading remarks, please. I have not made the argument that you're accusing me of. Spanking is a very specific and small subset of the actions that fall under the very broad definition of hitting. Much as ballet is a very specific and small subset of actions that fall under the very broad definition of dance. It is true that spanking is one very specific form of hitting. It is, however, materially incorrect and misleading to conflate all hitting with spanking. It is misleading to attempt to characterize hitting as spanking in a way that makes it seem as if all forms of hitting could reasonably be equated to spanking. It is especially misleading, to attempt to conflate spanking with beating, punching, backhanding etc. In this thread, the very specific action of controlled spanking on the rear with an open bare hand has repeatedly been misconstrued as being synonymous with backhanding across the face, beating with a belt or spoon, and an incredibly wide variety of actions that leave marks and bruises, and that every participant in this thread would recognize as abusive. This misconstruction has been done as part and parcel of insisting that it is all "hitting". All of those are "hitting", and spanking is also "hitting", therefore they must be the same.

Would you care to address the logic and integrity of those arguments?

Personally, I think ......

I didn't expect you to answer my question. I'm still disappointed.

Why should I justify your question? You've asked my when I stopped beating my wife. I did not introduce the concept, you did. You introduced an erroneous and irrelevant concept, and then asked me to defend it. I've now pointed out to you several times that I was specific in my statement.

I allowed myself to be distracted by you errant comment early on and you've now run with it. So I will reiterate once again: I specified "Physical contacts in discipline". You, however, have introduced as a counter "Physical restraint in order to secure the safety of a child". You additionally took a sideways step and insisted that I was conflating "physical restraint" and "punishment" as synonymous, when I've done no such thing.

As you've shown a repeated willful desire to ignore my statements, and instead have chosen to substitute your own strawmen in this argument, I will now discontinue this discussion.