Support NeoGAF

[Kaveman]

As parents, it's our responsibility to keep dangerous objects out of reach, but that's not always possible. In an emergency we do the minimum necessary to stop the child. Typically I would grasp the child's wrist or move the item out of reach. A verbal prompt, just "No!", should accompany the action.

I'm not sure how hitting or "flicking" as you call it, is supposed to be necessary. If you ever encounter a situation where a small child can't easily be physically restrained, however, let me know. That must be a very strong child indeed.

Okay now I see that grabbing the kids wrist would probably be better than a flick

 

[Messofanego]

Wasn't expecting a couple of people on the last page to justify violence against kids was them prepping the kid for a violent, harsh world. But here we are.

 

[Onivulk]

Wtf at hitting pets. Why?

"Hello dog, you live in my home now. Suppress all of your instincts or face my wrath"

 

[Septimius]

well, joke's on you -- I've absolutely hit my pets.

Oh yeah, the joke's totally on me. Physical abuse for everyone. Haha. Get it?

In fact I don't know too many people with pets who didn't at some point...? Not sure where this "unanimous" is coming from.

I'm going out on a limb here and say that it is unanimous outside of your circle. Extremely few people feel it is OK to abuse their position of power with their pets.

And, yes, the reason is because with children, you can clearly communicate with them. If they disobey you, it's because they chose to disobey you. Not because they didn't understand, or lacked the capacity to understand, as would be the case with most pets.

Children are not dumb, they're ignorant. I would never condone physical punishment against an entity that doesn't understand why its happening to them. At that point it's cruelty, only at the benefit of the person causing the pain.

..But you just said you hit your pets...

But like you said...that doesn't always happen. Hence:

The difference is that while you feel you are in a position to discern good use from bad, literally all research over more than twenty years show that there are no good benefits from physically punishing children, and that there can only be negative effects. The reason why we have research to understand these things is that we negate the perpetuation of certain practices through culture, and through "I hit my children because my parents hit me, and that seemed to have worked".

We can instead make useful observations on how techniques we employ actually work when you study the effects of it, and all research shows it only has negative effects.

There are plenty of good arguments to spanking your child. You just refuse to accept them. I mean, it's really just that simple.

Really? Cause I've cited a lot more research in this thread than you have. Can you give me one good argument for hitting your children? That doesn't involve "violence is always a part of life"?

i'm willing to agree that never having to cause pain to your child is probably ideal...but not really, because people aren't ideal creatures, and i don't know how useful that statement will ever be.

So the 50 countries around the world that have banned hitting children, they just do it for show? Because no parent are ever good enough not to fucking hurt their child? I mean, if you can't prevent yourself from hurting your children, then I guess that's who you are, but you categorically applying this to everyone else isn't what constitutes a good reason for hitting your children, and it in absolutely no way does it represent how other people are.

You seem to believe that violence is something that should always be avoided, but you refuse to accept that violence is a part of human nature that can't be avoided.

I'm sorry you see the world with violence in center like that. I can tell you that it absolutely can be avoided. I've never been bullied, I've never "not been able to defend myself", I've actually trained martial arts for many years, and would be fully capable of defending myself, but I have not once ever needed it.

Every time i step into one of these bully threads, and read about how people let a single person emotionally wreck them with stress on a day-to-day basis (because their parents never taught them how to appropriately apply violence to protect themselves), it's honestly a bit sad.

That's a horrible generalization, and it is completely irrelevant to this thread. You do not show you kids anything about defending themselves when you hit them.


To be honest, after having to respond to that post, I feel you live in a very violence-centric world. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm saddened by hearing that. I'm also very sorry that you perpetuate that with your children and your pets; that you are unable to see that the world the way you see it is worse for the way violence is central to it, and that you pull those close to you into that same sad world of abusing power and violence.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

I hope no one here hits their cat

 

[DaMasta113]

I have literally no idea what this has to do with what I wrote. Unless you think calling the authorities when someone is breaking the law by assaulting their kid is bullying?

No. He means your extreme view points are identical to the way a bully thinks. And he's absolutely correct.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

I appreciate your honesty, and I appreciate our ability to have good back and forth. I like that you are open about how you feel about it, but at one point you call it a shortcoming. You say you want to be better than to do it, but then you mix in these ways of saying it's a way to show your children what violence is. No one needs to be shown what violence is to grasp it. And you say it is a useful tool. I think that's justifying a cultural stance on something. Over 50 countries have banned the practice. In those countries, you can't argue that it's a useful tool. And the trend is only pointing up. No one is withdrawing it being illegal. No one goes "wait, we need to hit our children, never mind that law". Research keeps showing it isn't a good tool, and every single person on the field discourages ever using it. In the context of your post, where you go to personal levels to show we're all people, and we're all gonna err with our children in some ways (we all will), then it's strange to at the same time argue that "but it does have it's uses". I have to challenge you on saying that that just feels like justification.

I spend a lot of time in these threads because it's so controversial to me. As I said, I believe the science behind the negative effects of punishment and spanking. I've taken punishments too far, every parent has, it always sucks when it happens. As a parent, you always question yourself, but this is where the confusion comes in. I think sometimes we have to experience bad things to grow as a person. Some bad things are WAY over the top and are labeled as trauma. Some bad things leave a mark, but also better prepare you for the future. I would rather my children learn how to deal with violence in a pretty safe place rather than on the fly in the outside world. If you screw up too big out there, someone will hurt them, and far worse than I ever have. I really feel like something like spanking can be used to help with that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never found research that is nuanced enough to get into issues like these. I can't help but feel like it's important. As an example, my kid may trust me less for forcing him to get a shot that hurts and maybe gaining a fear for needles, but I know I'm helping him in the long run. I dunno.

 

[Cat Party]

I'm going to be honest here, this is just my personal opinion, I know violence will never disappear from the world and I want my kids to really think about and process what it means. I feel terribly guilty when I get really mad at my kids, but I think it's useful that they see that pushing the wrong person the wrong way can have consequences. I'll state that I have only spanked my kids a combined number that I could probably count on two hands and I define my spanking as one firm smack to the butt and no more. I have only ever used it as a last resort for when I've repeated myself many times or have used other punishments or reinforcements to no prevail. I'd like to think a stronger parent with more resources than me could go without it, but it's something I turn to when I feel a limit to bad behavior had been reached.

I actually teach my children to look at me not just as their parent, but a person with flaws that can make mistakes. I want them to love and trust me, but to always question the things I say and do. I have taught them ways to call me out when I'm getting too upset from their perspective and it's actually worked. They've both told me when they think I'm yelling too much or being too harsh. I'm not perfect, but the world can be monstrous and in a way, I'm glad I can help them learn about how to deal with these situations. They help me become a better person as well. We haven't resorted to a spanking for over a year now and I think we're better for it, but I haven't completely given up on it because I think it can be a useful tool in the right situation. My children are both very healthy and happy and are often praised for how measured and understanding they are. Like, it's embarrassing how much praise they get, especially when I feel like I'm screwing up all the time. Maybe I'm harming them down the road, but I don't know. I can't shake the feeling that some future anxiety might be worth them being better prepared for a harsh world. There is always someone bigger and stronger who can put you down and nothing will ever change that.

I appreciate your honesty but it sounds to me like you're trying to justify your actions after the fact. You can show your kids that you are vulnerable and flawed without hitting them. The world can be dangerous, but home should not be.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

No. He means your extreme view points are identical to the way a bully thinks. And he's absolutely correct.

This thread is unbelievable.

 

[Messofanego]

No. He means your extreme view points are identical to the way a bully thinks. And he's absolutely correct.

The extreme view point of considering a parent who hits their kids is a bad one and in Scotland he would follow the law by calling the police if he sees a parent hit their child?

 

[RDreamer]

I hope no one here hits their cat

I absolutely spank my cat

 

[Unbounded]

The thing about the dog comparison is that we as a society still do find use for controlled physical corrections, (particular collars, as an example), in order to manage behaviors, and to a large effect if the one managing the behavior knows what they're doing can produce fantastic results. (Guard dogs, police dogs, etc)

What I'm seeing a lot of here is people outright stating that physical punishments/corrections absolutely cannot in any circumstance work, which is blindly ignorant at best, and malicious at worst. To say that anything of that sort cannot ever work is to make a massive claim that positive punishment in general cannot ever work, and I'm fairly confident that assertion is beyond the scope of the given studies.

What I can agree with, however, given the mentioned studies, is that physical corrections and/or physical punishment is more often than not, not the best way to teach something, and a fair chunk of the time it is not the most effective method to solve a given problem. However, fringe cases where a physical reprimand in some shape or form is necessary will still exist, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. It's precisely why we're okay with punching Nazis or why things like the Police exist in the first place. Physical punishment definitely should not be the first thing a parent, trainer, or general caretaker goes to, but it should always exist within the tool-belt if other methods fail.

 

[MIMIC]

I think it makes you fear whoever hit/spanked/smacked you.

Sometimes you wanna be respected. And sometimes you don't have time for that; fear and obedience FTW!

I'd never hit my kids, though. I'd just punish them to hell and back (such is a complete revocation of privileges).

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

I have literally no idea what this has to do with what I wrote. Unless you think calling the authorities when someone is breaking the law by assaulting their kid is bullying?

The point is, having a kid taken from their parents and thrown into a nightmarish situation over you witnessing a spanked butt is pretty senseless and can cause a lot of harm. The bullying claim comes from the language you decided to use to demean a rather overwhelming subset of people who literally might not know any better.

I appreciate your honesty but it sounds to me like you're trying to justify your actions after the fact. You can show your kids that you are vulnerable and flawed without hitting them. The world can be dangerous, but home should not be.

See, it's the rhetoric used here where everything falls apart. My children have shown zero signs of feeling unsafe in their home (and again, I work with teens who suffer from extreme trauma. I'm literally trained to look out for telltale signs). I also literally thought about all of this before even having kids as I didn't have them until I was 30. I don't spank to show I'm vulnerable and flawed, but I can't help but feel that it's one way of doing so. It's one example of how some potential good can come from an otherwise bad place.

 

[Septimius]

I spend a lot of time in these threads because it's so controversial to me. As I said, I believe the science behind the negative effects of punishment and spanking. I've taken punishments too far, every parent has, it always sucks when it happens. As a parent, you always question yourself, but this is where the confusion comes in. I think sometimes we have to experience bad things to grow as a person. Some bad things are WAY over the top and are labeled as trauma. Some bad things leave a mark, but also better prepare you for the future. I would rather my children learn how to deal with violence in a pretty safe place rather than on the fly in the outside world. If you screw up too big out there, someone will hurt them, and far worse than I ever have. I really feel like something like spanking can be used to help with that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never found research that is nuanced enough to get into issues like these. I can't help but feel like it's important. As an example, my kid may trust me less for forcing him to get a shot that hurts and maybe gaining a fear for needles, but I know I'm helping him in the long run. I dunno.

To be honest, you're just going in circles. Every parent will do something they wish they can take back at some point. I'm happy you have a way to discuss that with your children, but then you move on to say that it's good that you do those things, because you can learn from it. Well, yes, in a way, but you're saying "that's why it was ultimately good that I hit them". That's not how it works.

You also say that "if you really screw up out there, you may really be hurt", but you cannot honestly believe that you spanking your children will prevent them from getting hurt or killed by random people on the street. There's a huge dissonance there. You are not a random person. Your punishment can't be transferred to such disconnected situation. It is too far fetched to claim that striking your kids will make them better prepared not to get stabbed on the subway, and it is why I'm calling it out as justification.

It's one example of how some potential good can come from an otherwise bad place.

The fact that overstepping a boundary with a kid can teach them that we are all flawed is not the precedence you use for arguing why hitting your children isn't bad, though.

 

[Guamu]

Things I learnt from this thread

• 
  I'm a failure as a person and a bad parent

• 
  I'm not a failure as a person an a reasonable parent

• 
  People without kids shouldn't say anything about parenting until they have some

• 
  People with kids don't know shit on how to properly raise a kid studies show, so they shouldn't say anything about parenting

 

[Chainsawkitten]

The point is, having a kid taken from their parents and thrown into a nightmarish situation over you witnessing a spanked butt is pretty senseless and can cause a lot of harm. The bullying claim comes from the language you decided to use to demean a rather overwhelming subset of people who literally might not know any better.

Good thing that's not how those laws work, then. Places that have outlawed corporal punishment aren't going to send you to prison or terminate your parental rights because you spanked your child once. You're going to get a visit from social services telling you that that's not the way to do things and give your resources for how to raise your kids. Foster care is a last resort for extreme cases.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

The thing about the dog comparison is that we as a society still do find use for controlled physical corrections, (particular collars, as an example), in order to manage behaviors, and to a large effect if the one managing the behavior knows what they're doing can produce fantastic results. (Guard dogs, police dogs, etc)

What I'm seeing a lot of here is people outright stating that physical punishments/corrections absolutely cannot in any circumstance work, which is blindly ignorant at best, and malicious at worst. To say that anything of that sort cannot ever work is to make a massive claim that positive punishment in general cannot ever work, and I'm fairly confident that assertion is beyond the scope of the given studies.

What I can agree with, however, given the mentioned studies, is that physical corrections and/or physical punishment is more often than not, not the best way to teach something, and a fair chunk of the time it is not the most effective method to solve a given problem. However, fringe cases where a physical reprimand in some shape or form is necessary will still exist, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. It's precisely why we're okay with punching Nazis or why things like the Police exist in the first place. Physical punishment definitely should not be the first thing a parent, trainer, or general caretaker goes to, but it should always exist within the tool-belt if other methods fail.

There is one situation only where I've ever read it may be appropriate. When the child is in imminent danger and it's like a slap on the wrists to snap them to attention and stop them harming themselves.

I'm not sure how I feel about that because if you could hit them you could also just hold them and stop the danger surely.

I have a dog and I'd never hit him either. But the dog and the kid aren't same. Kids learn a certain way and they absolutely need to feel secure, loved and safe to give them the best chance of having emotional tools to have a happy fulfilling life. They need to be able to make mistakes and push boundaries without fearing the people who should be protecting them.

 

[Laiza]

The thing about the dog comparison is that we as a society still do find use for controlled physical corrections, (particular collars, as an example), in order to manage behaviors, and to a large effect if the one managing the behavior knows what they're doing can produce fantastic results. (Guard dogs, police dogs, etc)

What I'm seeing a lot of here is people outright stating that physical punishments/corrections absolutely cannot in any circumstance work, which is blindly ignorant at best, and malicious at worst. To say that anything of that sort cannot ever work is to make a massive claim that positive punishment in general cannot ever work, and I'm fairly confident that assertion is beyond the scope of the given studies.

What I can agree with, however, given the mentioned studies, is that physical corrections and/or physical punishment is more often than not, not the best way to teach something, and a fair chunk of the time it is not the most effective method to solve a given problem. However, fringe cases where a physical reprimand in some shape or form is necessary will still exist, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. It's precisely why we're okay with punching Nazis or why things like the Police exist in the first place. Physical punishment definitely should not be the first thing a parent, trainer, or general caretaker goes to, but it should always exist within the tool-belt if other methods fail.

I just want to take a moment to point out that things like Nazis and violent criminal activity are indictments of the current way society is run, not justifications for violence. Sure, we use violence as a last result, but it is not a preventative measure and absolutely not useful for teaching children anything.

We wouldn't have nazis if parents and the education system were so ill-equipped to teach them the value of other human beings, and we wouldn't need police if the system we run society with (capitalism) weren't so ill-equipped to take make sure everyone's basic needs are met.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

To be honest, you're just going in circles. Every parent will do something they wish they can take back at some point. I'm happy you have a way to discuss that with your children, but then you move on to say that it's good that you do those things, because you can learn from it. Well, yes, in a way, but you're saying "that's why it was ultimately good that I hit them". That's not how it works.

You also say that "if you really screw up out there, you may really be hurt", but you cannot honestly believe that you spanking your children will prevent them from getting hurt or killed by random people on the street. There's a huge dissonance there. You are not a random person. Your punishment can't be transferred to such disconnected situation. It is too far fetched to claim that striking your kids will make them better prepared not to get stabbed on the subway, and it is why I'm calling it out as justification.

No, if course it doesn't allow them to avoid random violence, but it might give them pause before any planned confrontation to consider the consequences they might face. Don't pick a direct fight with someone with 100 pounds on you, for instance. To always be careful and skeptical about anyone in a position of authority and what they could do to you, etc.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

The point is, having a kid taken from their parents and thrown into a nightmarish situation over you witnessing a spanked butt is pretty senseless and can cause a lot of harm. The bullying claim comes from the language you decided to use to demean a rather overwhelming subset of people who literally might not know any better.

If the kid is getting a spanked butt then they are not getting taken anywhere. They should be cautioned and warned about breaking the law again though.

If they are beating the shit out of them? Then yeah they should lose them until they have improved themselves enough to be assessed as a fit parent by someone qualified to make that call. Also as it would be illegal they should be charged with assault like they would if it was an adult they were hitting.

 

[LordKasual]

I'm sorry you see the world with violence in center like that. I can tell you that it absolutely can be avoided. I've never been bullied, I've never "not been able to defend myself", I've actually trained martial arts for many years, and would be fully capable of defending myself, but I have not once ever needed it.

You didn't have to tell me any of this. I could already tell.

Congratulations on being lucky, please continue to police the rest of the world on how to deal with issues you've never had to deal with.

At this point you just sound like a violent person in general and absolutely everything you've said in this thread is just an ad-hoc way of justifying your violent tendencies after the fact.

Hahaha, what violent tendencies?

I have never hit anyone who didn't have it coming to them (i.e. tried to hit me first), and i've never disciplined anyone's kids by hitting them. I was raised better then that.

To be honest, after having to respond to that post, I feel you live in a very violence-centric world. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm saddened by hearing that. I'm also very sorry that you perpetuate that with your children and your pets; that you are unable to see that the world the way you see it is worse for the way violence is central to it, and that you pull those close to you into that same sad world of abusing power and violence.

Please, cry me a river.

I don't have any children. And before my cat passed away, I hadn't hit her since I was in elementary school, something my parents (who "abused me") never did or condoned.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Good thing that's not how those laws work, then. Places that have outlawed corporal punishment aren't going to send you to prison or terminate your parental rights because you spanked your child once. You're going to get a visit from social services telling you that that's not the way to do things and give your resources for how to raise your kids. Foster care is a last resort for extreme cases.

If the kid is getting a spanked butt then they are not getting taken anywhere. They should be cautioned and warned about breaking the law again though.

If they are beating the shit out of them? Then yeah they should lose them until they have improved themselves enough to be assessed as a fit parent by someone qualified to make that call. Also as it would be illegal they should be charged with assault like they would if it was an adult they were hitting.

Again, I work in social services and you both need to understand the realities of the situation. Kids and families fall through the cracks all the time and anyone reported is at the whim of whoever follows up on an investigation. These positions are usually high stress and low pay and it attracts a lot of very good people and also some very bad ones.

People have literally lost their children over someone having a bad day. Never call social services unless you're absolutely certain a kid is in serious risk of prolonged abuse. You may think you're helping, but you might be destroying multiple lives, especially the one you wanted to help the most.

 

[Septimius]

You didn't have to tell me any of this. I could already tell.

Congratulations on being lucky, please continue to police the rest of the world on how to deal with issues you've never had to deal with.

You're somehow saying your situation is applicable to everyone, yet my situation isn't. I'm happy to hear you consider me lucky; I do too. However, categorically applying that you need violence because the world is violent is a wrong conclusion from an even more wrong hypothesis. There's absolutely no necessity for violence in the world, and you even propose that it is more ideal to not have it, and to not be violent with your children. It's a huge leap from there to saying "but you have to do it anyway, because violence will eventually strike". Physically punishing your child does nothing to teach the kid anything meaningful about violence. It does teach the kind of things you're saying. Violence is just a byproduct, and as such, kids may as well learn that. That's pretty shitty. That's not what violence should be, even if "utilized properly".

Again, I work in social services and you both need to understand the realities of the situation. Kids and families fall through the cracks all the time and anyone reported is at the whim of whoever follows up on an investigation. These positions are usually high stress and low pay and it attracts a lot of very good people and also some very bad ones.

People have literally lost their children over someone having a bad day. Never call social services unless you're absolutely certain a kid is in serious risk of prolonged abuse. You may think you're helping, but you might be destroying multiple lives, especially the one you wanted to help the most.

We're moving off topic.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Again, I work in social services and you both need to understand the realities of the situation. Kids and families fall through the cracks all the time and anyone reported is at the whim of whoever follows up on an investigation. These positions are usually high stress and low pay and it attracts a lot of very good people and also some very bad ones.

People have literally lost their children over someone having a bad day. Never call social services unless you're absolutely certain a kid is in serious risk of prolonged abuse. You may think you're helping, but you might be destroying multiple lives, especially the one you wanted to help the most.

What your saying doesn't really make sense. Its best to err on the side of caution. No one permanently loses their kids for nothing.

 

[LordKasual]

You're somehow saying your situation is applicable to everyone, yet my situation isn't---

Nope. Everything after this is just you going off on something I never insinuated.


not once have i said there was something mentally wrong with you or your parents for opting out of violence

multiple times i've said that non-violence is probably the ideal way to raise a child, despite acknowledging that it isn't always applicable to every situation.

the disagreement here is your rigid stance on physical punishment causing you to judge people you have no understanding of. Not my inability to see the effectiveness of another path.


For the third time:

The problem with this argument is the bias of people suggesting that it's absolutely positively wrong, under any and all circumstances, to cause physical pain to a child for disciplinary reasons. And seeing that we're talking about psychology, there are plenty of reasons why it's silly to take a rigid, absolute stance like this on such a complex issue.

If you personally never grew up in such an environment, and instead in one where there's no reason to ever escalate to violence, then physical punishment will sound completely unnecessary to you because you wouldn't know any better.

Now, none of that is to say that the same lesson couldn't have been taught without getting physical with your child, or that this is the only (or even most optimal) way to discipline/raise a child. But it's just something you should maybe consider before you point fingers and call well-meaning parents child abusers because they hit their children.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

There is no 'debate' on the merits of corporeal punishment. The science has already come in and the research clearly shows that is both ineffective and harmful. Yes, you may gain short term compliance by hitting your children but you foster long-term behavioral disruptions; both in terms of actually increasing the likelihood of future disobedience and long-term problems with psychological development.

All I ask is that you be honest about what you're arguing.

”It's a very controversial area even though the research is extremely telling and very clear and consistent about the negative effects on children," says Sandra Graham-Bermann, PhD, a psychology professor and principal investigator for the Child Violence and Trauma Laboratory at the University of Michigan. ”People get frustrated and hit their kids. Maybe they don't see there are other options."

But spanking doesn't work, says Alan Kazdin, PhD, a Yale University psychology professor and director of the Yale Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic. ”You cannot punish out these behaviors that you do not want," says Kazdin, who served as American Psychological Association president in 2008. ”There is no need for corporal punishment based on the research. We are not giving up an effective technique. We are saying this is a horrible thing that does not work."

 

[Septimius]

not once have i said there was something mentally wrong with you or your parents for opting out of violence

multiple times i've said that non-violence is probably the ideal way to raise a child, despite acknowledging that it isn't always applicable to every situation.

the disagreement here is your rigid stance on physical punishment. Not my inability to see the effectiveness of another path.

Out of all the things to be rigid about, I think violence is one of the things where one doesn't go "but you don't know the whole story". That doesn't apply when it comes to hitting spouses, that shouldn't apply when it comes to hitting kids. Then again, I live in a country where the legal stance is absolute. It isn't allowed. I've asked you before to come up with a reason as to why I shouldn't have this rigid stance, and you haven't responded to that. Other arguments on the matter have resolved around "violence being needed", and that's not really a good argument. It's not even "ideal", it is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Research shows the negative effects, and the utter lack of positive effects. There's really not debate, and this hand-waving doesn't change that.

 

[ApharmdX]

Wasn't expecting a couple of people on the last page to justify violence against kids was them prepping the kid for a violent, harsh world. But here we are.

Of course the world is supported by a backbone of violence!

If you lose control and hit someone, the police will be called. They'll either take you into custody peacefully for a "time out", or, if you refuse to calm down, compel you with physical force all the way up to a bullet to the torso.

If one sovereign nation decides that they want the "toy" another nation is playing with, and try to take it, you have to contend with that nation's military.

Whenever the US president speaks on the international stage, it's with the implicit understanding that he's backed by the largest and most powerful military in the planet's history, capable of beating any other nation when unleashed to its full potential.

I don't think that this has much direct bearing on the discussion, but I have seen this claim made several times in the topic, that corporal punishment doesn't have any bearing on how human societies work, and it's naive. It's wrong.

 

[Septimius]

I don't think that this has much direct bearing on the discussion, but I have seen this claim made several times in the topic, that corporal punishment doesn't have any bearing on how human societies work, and it's naive. It's wrong.

Wow. I thought you were being facetious up until this part. Wow.

 

[Cocaloch]

Of course the world is supported by a backbone of violence!

If you lose control and hit someone, the police will be called. They'll either take you into custody peacefully for a "time out", or, if you refuse to calm down, compel you with physical force all the way up to a bullet to the torso.

If one sovereign nation decides that they want the "toy" another nation is playing with, and try to take it, you have to contend with that nation's military.

Whenever the US president speaks on the international stage, it's with the implicit understanding that he's backed by the largest and most powerful military in the planet's history, capable of beating any other nation when unleashed to its full potential.

None of this is justification for hitting children. States being institutionalized and legitimized violence doesn't mean you can ethically hit your kids.

I don't think that this has much direct bearing on the discussion, but I have seen this claim made several times in the topic, that corporal punishment doesn't have any bearing on how human societies work, and it's naive. It's wrong.

No one said this. They said studies have pretty conclusively show hitting your child isn't an effective way to discipline them and causes a bunch of other problems. Of course none of your examples here were corporal punishment either.

 

[Ryzaki009]

I hope no one here hits their cat

If my cat gores me she absolutely gets a swat.

 

[Allonym]

So my question to those of you saying children never deserve to be hit, what do you do if your child is one of the many children in the US who played the "knock out" game or who pours boiling hot water on unsuspecting, innocent people. Do you simply talk to them, hoping that your words penetrate and somehow bring about change. For everyone who has criticized me in this thread and others, what should be done? No one has directly addressed the truly terrible things that kids are capable of and have done. We just hand wave it away and say, science says this is ineffective so therefore it is.

Kids today have too much free reign, and maybe we're not talking about 1:1 situations here. I'm not whooping a young child, but a young adolescent who is fully knowledgeable of right and wrong without being instructed about the ramifications of something before acting on impulse. Are we all talking about kids that fight adults, disrupt their classes, curse out their parents and other authority figures, hurt innocent people or are we talking about young k-6 kids or suburban kids who talk back to their parents and get snippy because their parents don't understand them?

These are entirely different beasts and I don't think the same disciplinary measures are effective for all cases.

 

[Lord Error]

The only 'balance' is the balance between the fair punishment and the abuse. I absolutely believe that it's completely possible for some parent to abuse their child mentally, with lasting effects, even if they don't hurt them physically. Saying just that physical abuse is wrong, is not enough.

 

[Cocaloch]

So my question to those of you saying children never deserve to be hit, what do you do if your child is one of the many children in the US who played the "knock out" game or who pours boiling hot water on unsuspecting, innocent people.

Well part of it is you parent better, and have a society that is better able to deal with the issues like normalized violence that lead to this, so they don't get to that level, but yes you talk to them. What makes you think if talking doesn't work beating them will when studies show it doesn't.

For everyone who has criticized me in this thread and others, what should be done? No one has directly addressed the truly terrible things that kids are capable of and have done. We just hand wave it away and say, science says this is ineffective so therefore it is.

Do you normally do ineffective things just to do them? Like if it's ineffective what's the point? Also kids being horrible doesn't just give you free reign to hit them.

Kids today have too much free reign, and maybe we're not talking about 1:1 situations here. I'm not whooping a young child, but a young adolescent who is fully knowledgeable of right and wrong without being instructed about the ramifications of something before acting on impulse. Are we all talking about kids that fight adults, disrupt their classes, curse out their parents and other authority figures, hurt innocent people or are we talking about young k-6 kids or suburban kids who talk back to their parents and get snippy because their parents don't understand them?

Well it sucks that this happens, but it's not useful or ethical to hit your children in an attempt to deal with this. Not to mention a culture that normalizes violence will cause problematic behavior through the normalization of violence.

These are entirely different beasts and I don't think the same disciplinary measures are effective for all cases.

None of this was a positive argument to hit children. You made no claim to the efficacy of hitting children. All you did is declare, based on nothing, that talking, as if that was the only alternative discipline method, wasn't working.

The only 'balance' is the balance between the fair punishment and the abuse. I absolutely believe that it's completely possible for some parent to abuse their child mentally, with lasting effects, even if they don't hurt them physically. Saying just that physical abuse is wrong, is not enough.

I highly doubt anyone posting don't hit your kid doesn't believe in emotional abuse. Emotional abuse existing is not a justification to hit your kid. What are you even saying?

Don't hit or emotionally abuse your kid.

 

[AnathemicOne]

So my question to those of you saying children never deserve to be hit, what do you do if your child is one of the many children in the US who played the "knock out" game or who pours boiling hot water on unsuspecting, innocent people. Do you simply talk to them, hoping that your words penetrate and somehow bring about change. For everyone who has criticized me in this thread and others, what should be done? No one has directly addressed the truly terrible things that kids are capable of and have done. We just hand wave it away and say, science says this is ineffective so therefore it is.

Kids today have too much free reign, and maybe we're not talking about 1:1 situations here. I'm not whooping a young child, but a young adolescent who is fully knowledgeable of right and wrong without being instructed about the ramifications of something before acting on impulse. Are we all talking about kids that fight adults, disrupt their classes, curse out their parents and other authority figures, hurt innocent people or are we talking about young k-6 kids or suburban kids who talk back to their parents and get snippy because their parents don't understand them?

These are entirely different beasts and I don't think the same disciplinary measures are effective for all cases.

Kids aren't born delinquents.

 

[Jackpot]

The only people who will defend hitting children are those that were raised that way themselves and desperately want to believe that it wasn't a pointless thing they suffered through for no purpose other than their parent's cruelty.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

So my question to those of you saying children never deserve to be hit, what do you do if your child is one of the many children in the US who played the "knock out" game or who pours boiling hot water on unsuspecting, innocent people. Do you simply talk to them, hoping that your words penetrate and somehow bring about change. For everyone who has criticized me in this thread and others, what should be done? No one has directly addressed the truly terrible things that kids are capable of and have done. We just hand wave it away and say, science says this is ineffective so therefore it is.

Kids today have too much free reign, and maybe we're not talking about 1:1 situations here. I'm not whooping a young child, but a young adolescent who is fully knowledgeable of right and wrong without being instructed about the ramifications of something before acting on impulse. Are we all talking about kids that fight adults, disrupt their classes, curse out their parents and other authority figures, hurt innocent people or are we talking about young k-6 kids or suburban kids who talk back to their parents and get snippy because their parents don't understand them?

These are entirely different beasts and I don't think the same disciplinary measures are effective for all cases.

You find other ways to deal with it because hitting them will absolutely not work it will only make it worse. We don't hit rapist's or murderers when they're full grown adults.

 

[PK Gaming]

The long term damage vastly, vastly outweighs the short term benefits.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Don't hit or emotionally abuse your kid.

This.

 

[Cocaloch]

The only people who will defend hitting children are those that were raised that way themselves and desperately want to believe that it wasn't a pointless thing they suffered through for no purpose other than their parent's cruelty.

I think you're missing the conservative mindset and the idea of declension that's key here. "Back in my day kids were good and behaved and we used to beat them. We should get back to that." This is of course coupled with claims about the effeteness of the left. Both have shown up in one form or another in this thread.

 

[Lord Error]

I highly doubt anyone posting don't hit your kid doesn't believe in emotional abuse. Emotional abuse existing is not a justification to hit your kid. What are you even saying?

Don't hit or emotionally abuse your kid.

I'm saying that I've seen the self professed "don't ever hit your kid" people yell at their kids so much that it makes me scared to witness it. So I guess they think that's somehow an OK thing to do, just as long as they don't physically hurt them.

 

[Cocaloch]

I'm saying that I've seen the self professed "don't ever hit your kid" people yell at their kids so much that it makes me scared to witness it. So I guess they think that's somehow OK thing to do.

Well you're making some weird strawman ad hominem combo here. Some people doing bad things doesn't mean other things they think are bad can't be bad.

I honestly don't understand how you think that could be a compelling argument.

Yelling at your kids a lot is bad. Hitting your kids is also bad.

 

[raidenandsolid]

So basically there is no catch all perfect way to raise a kid. Got it.

 

[Cocaloch]

So basically there is no catch all perfect way to raise a kid. Got it.

No one said there was a catch all perfect way to raise them. People have argued that there are certain kinds of actions that are both ethically bad and not useful.

There's not abstract perfect way to live your life. Despite that I think we can all agree there are bad actions. Those two ideas aren't really connected.

 

[Dude Abides]

So basically there is no catch all perfect way to raise a kid. Got it.

Exactly. Some people will discipline with talking and timeouts. Some will bribe with candy. Other people will spank them. Some will hit them with belts and wire hangers. Still others will hold them underwater until they almost pass out. There are as many ways to discipline as there are children and who's to say which are better or worse!

 

[ApharmdX]

None of this is justification for hitting children. States being institutionalized and legitimized violence doesn't mean you can ethically hit your kids.

I'm not using it as justification. Just pointing out that we as a society use violence as a tool to ensure compliance and shape behavior. It absolutely does work. It's a time-tested method.

No one said this. They said studies have pretty conclusively show hitting your child isn't an effective way to discipline them and causes a bunch of other problems. Of course none of your examples here were corporal punishment either.

Ehh violence is an effective way to discipline kids in the short term. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. If they are, then that is wrong. Violence ensures immediate compliance. The debate is on the long-term effects.

And we do still have corporal punishment in the US- the death penalty. I don't support it, but it's there, even today.

 

[Septimius]

I'm not using it as justification. Just pointing out that we as a society use violence as a tool to ensure compliance and shape behavior. It absolutely does work. It's a time-tested method.

Atomic deterrence is akin to showing your child that you are capable of hitting them if they are out of line? I mean, it is shockingly accurate, since both physical punishment and atomic deterrence are both mindsets from the cold war.

 

[Cocaloch]

I'm not using it as justification. Just pointing out that we as a society use violence as a tool to ensure compliance and shape behavior. It absolutely does work. It's a time-tested method.

State's use violence. That doesn't mean the purpose of the violence is punitive. You're making the same mistake again by folding all violence into punitive violence looking at the fact that violence can be useful then unpacking the punitive back out to say that it is effective. Much state violence is not about punishment, it's about forcing or incentivizing you to do something.

Ehh violence is an effective way to discipline kids in the short term. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. If they are, then that is wrong.

I mean that depends on your definition of "effective discipline" it might be an effective way to get the child to stop doing what they are doing at that moment. I wouldn't call that effective discipline though.

And we do still have corporal punishment in the US- the death penalty. I don't support it, but it's there, even today.

Who said otherwise? You didn't mention corporal punishment in that post unless you think the death penalty in the US is administered by shooting people in the chest.

Why are you acting like people are arguing this isn't here? I asked you that in my last post but you ignored me. Who are these people that in your words have said

but I have seen this claim made several times in the topic, that corporal punishment doesn't have any bearing on how human societies work, and it's naive. It's wrong.

You're playing real fast and loose with words here.

 

[Septimius]

Ehh violence is an effective way to discipline kids in the short term. Again, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. If they are, then that is wrong. Violence ensures immediate compliance. The debate is on the long-term effects.

Have you seen Game of Thrones? There's a character there that pretty well describes the thing you're describing. That fear can force people into submission. If submission is the only desirable outcome, then that's not a good life for either the parent or the child

And we do still have corporal punishment in the US- the death penalty. I don't support it, but it's there, even today.

They are similar in name only. Also, you're really only proving how backwater the US really is by showing these arcane punishment methods still utilized that the majority of the developed world has laid behind them.