Support NeoGAF

[Unbounded]

It's really weird how in these threads people seem to forget that psychological trends tend not to be as rigid when you get to the individual level.

 

[Septimius]

It's really weird how in these threads people seem to forget that psychological trends tend not to be as rigid when you get to the individual level.

But research shows that there is no demonstrable positive effect, and only negative. That negates the need to look at it at an individual level. That point aside, your argument is a really slippery slope. I'm sure someone can come up with a situation where hitting their spouse had a positive effect on something. Does that mean it should be legal? Even disregarding the slippery slope, morality is most often defined not by an isolated action, but by whether we can safely assume that something will be good. That's how medicine works, that's how laws work, that's how morality works. When it is safe to assume there are no tangible chance for a positive effect from physical punishment, AND it's a high risk of having a negative outcome, one cannot defend it morally by saying "but it MAY work with a given individual". It's too big of a leap, and the people judging who it will and won't work on are likely those that shouldn't make that distinction, and as such, by allowing it, you would allow many children to have a negative developmental health. That's just some of the reasons why what you said has no bearing on this discussion, and why you're merely putting up a hindrance that's irrelevant and destructive.

 

[Nafai1123]

My GF has her PhD in parent child development/attachment theory and she is adamant that physical violence does NOT work. I agree with her.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's really weird how in these threads people seem to forget that psychological trends tend not to be as rigid when you get to the individual level.

We have some evidence, in the absence of sufficient empirical evidence contradicting it or a decent rational argument explaining why it wouldn't work in a specific case why would you discount it? People aren't making good positive arguments for why they should be able to hit kids. The strongest arguments I've seen are anecdotal and correlative. You turning out fine while being hit as a child is not a positive argument for why we should hit children.

This is on top of the obvious ethical issue. The only attempts I've seen to deal with it are appeals to utility that are empirically untrue and that they aren't trying to defend rationally.

 

[ShironRedshift]

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.

Others have taken care of the rest, so I'll just address this right here. The "knockout game" is nothing more than a racist dogwhistle. It's nothing to be concerned about. It's something racists turned into some huge deal when there's absolutely zero evidence of how prevalent it is, who's doing what, etc, but that they use to portray black children as violent thugs:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/11/25/why_the_knockout_game_trend_is_a_myth.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christ.../the-knockout-game-myth-and-its-racist-roots/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/davey-d/knockout-game-media_b_4344158.html

I get that it's just an example and has nothing to do with your actual point. But that's a terrible example to have at the top of your mind. It shouldn't be something that comes to mind that easily, since the reason it's spread is just because it's a thing that racist fuckwits made up and tried to convince everyone else was some kind of epidemic to shit on black youth. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know about any of that. but the point is, be more careful about that stuff and don't accidentally spread that trash.

 

[Septimius]

what do you do if your child [...] pours boiling hot water on unsuspecting, innocent people.

If your child pours boiling water on innocent people, I really doubt corporal punishment will help the manner. That child needs an intervention in the way of being put with a child psychologist or similar, plain and simple. Utilizing violence on that child will likely only exacerbate the situation. Really.

 

[ShironRedshift]

It's really weird how in these threads people seem to forget that psychological trends tend not to be as rigid when you get to the individual level.

It's more weird to me that people even need evidence. Just from a moral level, it should be abhorrent and not even thought about. I mean, you wouldn't beat an adult woman or any adults in general, right? That's not how we work that out either. And you can't say that's because adults can reason and children can't, because we don't beat dogs or pets in general to get them to do what we want either (well, at least people who don't still stubbornly believe "alpha-wolf/beta-wolf" junk science that has been totally discredited and retracted that's used to justify people needing to establish themselves as the "alpha male" to their dogs anyway. That's not how wolf family units actually work, there's no such thing as alpha or beta wolves, so that all falls apart. And stubbornly clinging to incorrect ideas even after science has proven them incorrect has great relevance to this discussion, but I digress. Point being, it's not something most people would do to their pets to train them at this point), but rather use any other number of methods to train our dogs and other pets.

So that being the case, why would children just happen to exist in some mystical "Goldilocks zone" where they can reason better than dogs, but not as well as adult humans is apparently some reason that it's necessary to beat them, but not any of those other groups? If it's not right to do it to adults, and it's not right to do it to pets, why would it be right to do it for children either? That just seems rather convenient.

There's just no reason period. We don't allow abuse against those who are more capable of reason than children (adults). And we don't allow it against those less capable of reason than children (pets). So why would we allow or should we be alright with it against children either? Just from a moral, ethical, and logical perspective, it makes absolutely no sense at this point. And that's without even putting the scientific consensus on top of that, or anything of the sort

 

[tonysidaway]

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

Yes. If the child is in imminent danger it's important to save their life and limb. Grasping the wrist as they reach out for a sharp blade is the most effective way of doing that.

Wouldn't you agree? I'm honestly surprised to be challenged in this.

 

[tonysidaway]

But you were also talking about children not having power like some sort of issue to be addressed because that is for you the reason they are hit and why there are no legal barriers. In case I wasn't clear I'm just saying that is a weird position for me, why children should have power?

Children should have power so they can defend themselves against abusive treatment. I'm sorry that there seems to be a mutual incomprehension problem here. Can we at least agree that it's a good thing that since the Factory Acts it's no longer legal to exploit child labour? I'm looking for a starting point for discussion, a baseline we can both agree to.

 

[tonysidaway]

If you suffer from tunnel vision so severe that you can't distance discipline from a malicious power play, then i'm sorry but i might as well be talking to a brick wall.

I've raised two children, both of whom are now adults, with strong discipline but no punishment and no hitting. Now I'm not equating all hitting to a "malicious power play" (your words) but I will continue to question why you think it's okay to hit kids.

I asked you whether you were serious about defending the right to hit kids on the grounds that they aren't as bright as adults. I am still utterly staggered by your decision to double down on that breathtakingly callous suggestion, which (I emphasize) you yourself originated.

What argument could I possibly present that would make you think it even possible that hitting powerless, small, defenceless, slightly dim versions of yourself is evil? Isn't it obvious?

 

[LordKasual]

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.

I typed a response to this, but i had a customer and then Windows 10 fucked me

but the message was something along the lines of me not agreeing with people who harshly judge others whom they do not understand about things which they've never experienced just because of some idealistic way of thinking that doesn't translate perfectly into real life.

Case in point, (and i know you don't want to hear this)...but my parents beat me, and i turned out just fine...and honestly i wouldn't have it any other way. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

the only difference here is that i'm not going to judge or make broad pseudo-psychological generalizations about your parents for their methods of raising you.


Edit: "pseudo-psychological" is a bit harsh. There's a word that would describe the whole "knowledge vs wisdom" concept here but i'm too lazy to think of it

I've raised two children, both of whom are now adults, with strong discipline but no punishment and no hitting. Now I'm not equating all hitting to a "malicious power play" (your words) but I will continue to question why you think it's okay to hit kids.

I asked you whether you were serious about defending the right to hit kids on the grounds that they aren't as bright as adults. I am still utterly staggered by your decision to double down on that breathtakingly callous suggestion, which (I emphasize) you yourself originated.

What argument could I possibly present that would make you think it even possible that hitting powerless, small, defenceless, slightly dim versions of yourself is evil? Isn't it obvious?

Because it happened to me and my siblings, and none of us harbor any of these utterly terrible psychological shortcomings that everyone here keeps citing as a byproduct of physical punishment

If it were obvious, then I (and SO many others) would prove an example to your claim. But we don't.

 

[Paracelsus]

The stick can come in different ways. If there's no carrot even if you don't beat them up and punish them in other ways, they will still hold a grudge all their life because of it. Carrot, stick, carrot, stick. If there's no carrot, they will only remembers the stick times.

 

[CrackPebbles]

.

 

[tonysidaway]

Human children are not cats or dogs? The simple fact that you can hold a conversation with a child makes this comparison confusing to me....

Now this is getting really bizarre. Cats and dogs shouldn't be hit because we can't talk to them. Children can be hit, because we _can_ talk to them. Is this bizarro-world? Imagine my dog and my four-year-old daughter run into traffic (on different days). In each case, I act swiftly by seizing the child or dog. They are now safe. So now do I hit either of them? If so, why? Does it by any chance _not_ strike you as a completely crazy and irrelevant idea to hit anybody in such a circumstance?

 

[Septimius]

I typed a response to this, but i had a customer and then Windows 10 fucked me

but the message was something along the lines of me not agreeing with people who harshly judge others whom they do not understand about things which they've never experienced just because of some idealistic way of thinking that doesn't translate perfectly into real life.

See, when it comes to morally indefensible things, it's moot to argue for grey points. As I said, you could find situations wherein it is arguably better to beat your spouse, but a contrived situation for that does not make it OK to beat your wife. When you then say "but you can't be too black and white about it", it's pretty easy for me to say I absolutely can.

Case in point, (and i know you don't want to hear this)...but my parents beat me, and i turned out just fine...and honestly i wouldn't have it any other way. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

That's basically amor fati as Nietzsche called it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't say whether you're the way you are because of the beating, or despite of the beating. The good thing is that we have over two decades of research, and you keep skirting every mention I have of this that defeats the anecdotal and trite points you make about something that's morally pretty deplorable.

the only difference here is that i'm not going to judge or make broad pseudo-psychological generalizations about your parents for their methods of raising you.

Edit: "pseudo-psychological" is a bit harsh. There's a word that would describe the whole "knowledge vs wisdom" concept here but i'm too lazy to think of it

Well, see, if you look at the argument the same way, but about how to have a successful marriage, I would never feel bad to say to someone who's trying to tell me that "it might be right to hit your wife" as someone that's being open-minded. That's the way you're trying to put it, and that's not really what being open-minded is. Being open-minded would be you considering that despite the way you feel now, you might have been better off if your parents didn't beat you. But there's nothing unusual about making due with what we have, so we all cope with the upbringing we've gotten, and it doesn't affect us if things could've been different. We're happy with who we are, thus we're happy with our upbringing. But that's really just another point to heed the research and ensure we don't inflict negative effects upon our children.

Because it happened to me and my siblings, and none of us harbor any of these utterly terrible psychological shortcomings that everyone here keeps citing as a byproduct of physical punishment

If it were obvious, then I (and SO many others) would prove an example to your claim. But we don't.

But see, this is just not how to argue anything. You're putting anecdotal and trivial unconfirmed observations above literally hundreds of research paper on the matter. You're also reducing the argument to the absurd by saying "oh, if EVERYONE turns out so bad, then how come I'm not like that, huh?" - No one is saying that everyone has adverse effects, but the research shows that no one has positive effects. When negative effects are LIKELY to happen, and positives are not at all going to happen, you can't justify doing it. You're actually even DOUBLY reducing it to the absurd by not only saying that everyone has negative effects (which no one has said) but you also say that everyone turns out TERRIBLE (which absolutely no one has said). Please stop doing this.

Believe it or not, but you are not in a position to judge if you or someone you know turned out better because of being beaten, and the adverse effects are normally subtle and relate to confidence and security. You have no points of reference to judge if people could have been more confident, and what they may have meant. Those are the kind of variables research is able to show. You know what it shows?

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/12/1373.short

Key points

• Numerous studies have found that physical punishment increases the risk of broad and enduring negative developmental outcomes.
• No study has found that physical punishment enhances developmental health.
• Most child physical abuse occurs in the context of punishment.
• A professional consensus is emerging that parents should be supported in learning nonviolent, effective approaches to discipline.

The way you beat your pets and say that violence is an unavoidable part of life, I'd say you have some signs that you have some skewed views on these things.

 

[Crema]

"My parents beat me and I turned out perfectly fine" says person advocating for violence against children.

 

[LordKasual]

See, when it comes to morally indefensible things, it's moot to argue for grey points.

Not reading anymore past this; no point conversing with a brick wall.

You can take your bubble view of a morally perfect reality and soapbox it to every parent you come across. I know a few neighborhoods where I would literally pay to watch you.

You're like that one outspoken kid from the back of every sociology class that just couldn't comprehend why kids from the hood can't ignore the gangs, get a job and move away.

 

[tonysidaway]

lol, no it's not just a figure of speech. Have you ever watched A Christmas Story? It was a legit punishment for a long time. And yes, for swearing or something.

I'm not familiar with the film. I see it's from 1983, shortly before I got into the whole "being a heterosexual" and "making babies" business.

Well I never.

My kids sometimes swear. I taught them how to not swear inappropriately.

I think they probably also, somewhere along the line, might have picked up the idea that sticking a bar of soap into somebody's mouth is wrong, _especially_ if they are smaller and weaker and dimmer than you are.

And same goes for hitting.

Jesus fucking wept!

 

[Septimius]

Not reading anymore past this; no point conversing with a brick wall.

You can take your bubble view of a morally perfect reality and soapbox it to every parent you come across.

You're like that one outspoken kid from the back of every sociology class that just couldn't comprehend why kids from the hood can't ignore the gangs, get a job and move away.

What? I make a long post arguing against the flimsy points you make, and you decide you're not going to read past me calling you out on your bullshit? What are you even doing in this thread if you're not open to discuss things? I make well-formed arguments, cite research that shows the lack of understanding you have on the subject, and I show that your blanketed statement of "hitting children is OK" is categorically OK to disregard, and your attempts at normalizing it, and putting it in a gray area is akin to saying beating your spouse is OK, given the right situation.. And you decide to call me names over it?

I mean, how can you call me a brick wall when I actually responds to the arguments you make, while you say the same thing over and over and don't respond to the questions I raise about what you put forth?

 

[tonysidaway]

well, joke's on you -- I've absolutely hit my pets. In fact I don't know too many people with pets who didn't at some point...?

Oh shit, will this insanity never end?

Next time you hit one of your pets, phone the RSPCA and let them know about it. Nothing to be ashamed of, right?

 

[Acerac]

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

Jesus...

 

[data]

My dad used to hit me very often as a child for nearly every mistake I made, and my mother would do it too but not as much, when I was little all it would do was make me suicidal, feel unloved and want to run away from home. Now I'm grown up, I only feel deep resentment for my parents. So I'm definitely not going to do it to my children if I have them.

 

[tonysidaway]

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

Oh hang on. TechnicPuppet had said:

Scotland is going to ban it soon and I'll be calling the police every fecking time I see someone do it when it happens. My 3 year old has never been touched and he never will be, my job is to protect him and show him how to properly handle his emotions when he feels like lashing.

If you hit a kid your a weak, pathetic, bully and and a terrible parent no matter what you tell yourself.

Could you explain your reasoning, please?

 

[WaterAstro]

Never works.

 

[LordKasual]

What? I make a long post arguing against the flimsy points you make, and you decide you're not going to read past me calling you out on your bullshit? What are you even doing in this thread if you're not open to discuss things? I make well-formed arguments, cite research that shows the lack of understanding you have on the subject, and I show that your blanketed statement of "hitting children is OK" is categorically OK to disregard, and your attempts at normalizing it, and putting it in a gray area is akin to saying beating your spouse is OK, given the right situation.. And you decide to call me names over it?

I mean, how can you call me a brick wall when I actually responds to the arguments you make, while you say the same thing over and over and don't respond to the questions I raise about what you put forth?

boy I'm not about to circle back to that asinine spouse comparison

Here's some supplemental material tho

 

[tonysidaway]

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.

This. What is it with hitting-advocates and false dichotomies?

 

[Septimius]

boy I'm not about to circle back to that asinine spouse comparison

That's exactly what I call you out for. You don't respond to any arguments made against your anecdotal arguments. You wouldn't even be circling back to the argument, since you've never responded to me asking you about it multiple times already. If you do keep responding, please go back and read what I said, because I put time into that post to make points as to why I don't have to "not generalize" when it comes to hitting children. I've put forth my categorical perspective, but you decided to call me names over it, saying you wouldn't read it.

If that's how it's going to be, then you're not really having a discussion, you're just shouting what you feel, completely immutable, not listening to what anyone has to say.

Here's some supplemental material tho

Supplemental to what? You showing your utter disregard for people trying to have a discussion with you, piling on more anecdotes to make points that have already been refuted? Why not just respond to what I've written? Showing the cultural perpetuation that has been highlighted in this thread, as being the thing that should bend to actual research studies?

 

[tonysidaway]

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.

Which every adult on this thread knows. It's instinctive, or should be. Young child starting to run into traffic, let's have a bit of a think here. Hmm, I could just grab one of these handy limbs that come ready attached to all children, or I could just impotently smack them and hope they realise it's a signal to stop. This debate never happens. Just grab the kid. Don't take the opportunity to use the kid as a BDSM model.

 

[tonysidaway]

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.

Oh here I was assuming you might improve your game in the face of reasonable and polite criticism. You're seriously arguing that your kids might be so violently inclined that they'd risk their well-being by attacking much stronger people, if only you didn't teach them a lesson by using your superior strength? Just stop digging.

 

[tonysidaway]

Again, I work in social services

Please be American. If you were British I don't think I could bear it.

 

[tonysidaway]

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 have a quantification of this "many"? Here in Northeast England, living close to a school, the worst I get is the occasional kid ringing the doorbell and running away, and once or twice an egg thrown at a window.

Obviously the kind of serious assault you're talking about is far, far beyond parental discipline. If somebody has been seriously wounded, the authorities need to be involved.

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

It works if your goal is to create a future child abuser.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Neither of my parents ever hit me and I turned out okay.
Makes me cringe seeing trashy parents yelling at and smacking their kids in the middle of the store or something.

 

[tonysidaway]

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!

The harmful ways are worse. I raised my kids by arguing with them, and now they're thirtyish and we're still arguing. No bribes, no coathangers, no hitting, no timeouts. Lots of discipline, because learning to argue is a good way to learn discipline. The first time your child convinces you you're wrong, by the use of reason, it's a fucking week before you stop smiling. That's when you get it, that's when they get it.

 

[Messofanego]

Please.

Proving that you can achieve the same disciplinary effects without the use of physical punishment does not prove that physical punishment doesn't work. It obviously does, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

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.

For example, this sometimes goes beyond simple disciplinary action itself. I know kids who's parents were deliberately tough on them when it came to punishment because the environment they grew up in simply did not treat soft kids kindly, and the outside pressure to participate in "delinquent" activities has punishments that are worse than in other, more well-off neighborhoods. My own parents definitely went through this, and although i was far better off growing up than my parents were, they did the same to me and my siblings. 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. But like in so many of these GAF arguments, people just love to argue from these unrealistically ideal viewpoints about human issues that isn't always as simple as black and white. Life doesn't work that way and children aren't raised in research controlled environments.


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.

This is ignoring all the people in this thread who have had childhoods where they were hit but wouldn't ever do it nor have ever done it to their own kids, so I don't think it's some unrealistic ideal for only parents who grew up without domestic violence. Well-meaning or intent doesn't make for much of a difference if there's a continuous pattern of violence and it's taken up with authorities, actions speak louder than words or intentions.

 

[tonysidaway]

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.

Hey, good point. Hands up, how many people can name the EU countries that still have the death penalty? Answer beneath spoiler cover.

Spoiler

Absolutely no EU countries have the death penalty, because they're not allowed to join unless they abolish the death penalty.

 

[Estoc]

Talk to them, frustrating when they ignore you and repeat the same mistake, so you talk to them again, and again.

If they know as much as we do, it's either we're forking idiot or they're god damn genius. If it's the former, you have no place in passing your gene along, please stop. If it's the latter, then they probably wouldn't be doing the stupid things that warrant the punishment in the first place, so this universe cannot exist.

See them as a human just like you, full of prides and horrible dumb ideas, they will not know why you're so angry if you just shout, they won't listen if you try to teach them during the heat of the argument just as you aren't about to listen to your whoever during an argument even though you may already know you were in the wrong. Respect that as they're human, you can't just mold them into what you want, all you can do is to support them and hope that they won't make any huge mistake.

Remember you care because you want them good, violence is the opposite of that.

In short: No to violence.

 

[tonysidaway]

I asked "What argument could I possibly present that would make you think it even possible that hitting powerless, small, defenceless, slightly dim versions of yourself is evil? Isn't it obvious?"

Because it happened to me and my siblings, and none of us harbor any of these utterly terrible psychological shortcomings that everyone here keeps citing as a byproduct of physical punishment

If it were obvious, then I (and SO many others) would prove an example to your claim. But we don't.

Didn't you understand the question? Saying you were hit and survived doesn't address the question. What do you think might make you think hitting defenceless, powerless people is still evil, even if they're kids? Apologies for the wording, but you do seem to have decided to paint yourself into this corner of pleading that it's okay to hit kids even if we don't permit the striking of animals or women any more. I assume you're not one of those weirdos who have proudly admitted tonight on this thread that they hit animals.

 

[jviggy43]

Research has repeatedly shown that at best it does nothing and at worse it causes serious psychological damage. Don't hit kids.

 

[mrkgoo]

The harmful ways are worse. I raised my kids by arguing with them, and now they're thirtyish and we're still arguing. No bribes, no coathangers, no hitting, no timeouts. Lots of discipline, because learning to argue is a good way to learn discipline. The first time your child convinces you you're wrong, by the use of reason, it's a fucking week before you stop smiling. That's when you get it, that's when they get it.

Lol that started happening as soon as my kid could hold a conversation. Cheeky sod.

It's amazing how your kids are basically miniature versions of yourself. I saw all my flaws as a person reflected in my kids. It's an eye-opener.

And wtf at that poster claiming all pet-owners have hit their pets.

 

[Acerac]

I asked "What argument could I possibly present that would make you think it even possible that hitting powerless, small, defenceless, slightly dim versions of yourself is evil? Isn't it obvious?"



Didn't you understand the question? Saying you were hit and survived doesn't address the question. What do you think might make you think hitting defenceless, powerless people is still evil, even if they're kids? Apologies for the wording, but you do seem to have decided to paint yourself into this corner of pleading that it's okay to hit kids even if we don't permit the striking of animals or women any more. I assume you're not one of those weirdos who have proudly admitted tonight on this thread that they hit animals.

He barely knows anyone that doesn't hit animals.

To call the situation fucked is putting it lightly.

 

[tonysidaway]

Lol that started happening as soon as my kid could hold a conversation. Cheeky sod.

It's amazing how your kids are basically miniature versions of yourself. I saw all my flaws as a person reflected in my kids. It's an eye-opener.

And wtf at that poster claiming all pet-owners have hit their pets.

Yeah, parent-fist. Is that a thing? I think touching fists when you meet another parent who gets it should absolutely be a thing.

 

[mrkgoo]

Yeah, parent-fist. Is that a thing? I think touching fists when you meet another parent who gets it should absolutely be a thing.

To be honest I feel there's an internal unspoken parent-fist between parents. Like you walk into a parents room and one parent is chasing their kids around, another is trying to change a screaming baby, and so on... you just nod. There's no judgement there, you get it.

 

[tonysidaway]

He barely knows anyone that doesn't hit animals.

To call the situation fucked is putting it lightly.

Yeah, I only realised later that he's _that_ guy. If I respond to him again, maybe I'll post the numbers of some societies that work to prevent cruelty to animals. They can advise him on how to look after your pets without hurting them or subjecting them to avoidable stress.

 

[wisdomchild]

nm

 

[Foxy the Fox]

I was punished with the belt by my parents while my sister did not.

I am way more disciplined and careful than her.

So yes, I will be punishing my kids with the belt and explaining them why it happened I guess.

But sometimes it doesn’t work as seem here.

Hmmm

 

[Herr Schwarz]

I am childless. I know it's not an apt comparison but I have a dog.

I whip my dog with a bamboo stick if it starts to go bananas. I don't do this because I hate it. Or get off on inflicting pain.

I do it because I love my dog and I want it to turn out good.

 

[tonysidaway]

I think it might be a good idea to go back through the thread and count the number of people who post "well my parents hit me and I turned out okay."

Then each time a new one shows up we can just announce an increment in the count.

 

[TaterTots]

Speaking from first hand experience, no. It may have made things worse and caused me to be a little violent. I got into a lot of fights as I got older. I even remember having enough and grabbing the belt or switch out of my mothers hand and telling her enough.

 

[Tracygill]

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.

I disagree, kids have less freedom and spend less time unsupervised today in countries like the US and the UK.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...today_have_a_lot_less_freedom_than_their.html
https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...less-time-outdoors-than-prison-inmates-survey

Also don't hit your kids you're an adult human being with an adult brain, Jesus Christ. If you've managed to figure out how to stay alive long enough to procreate you should be smart enough to avoid physically assaulting your offspring like an animal.