condompickle
Banned
im drunk and it's not even 2.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How old must a child be for spanking to be illegal in the US?
- Thread starter ChainedMaster
- Start date
- Status
im drunk and it's not even 2.
Yes. Not only did they do that, but we're actually currently all living in a sort of Renaissance compared to where people were at in the 1800s and before in terms of crime rates. And even if you "just" segregate the data in the past 100 years, you would not find any generation in this country particularly worse or better than the ones before.
CornBurrito
Member
That's great. Statistics show violent crimes are down or roughly the same among youth compared to that time period. Your limited anecdotal experience doesn't counter that.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Statistics are limited in what they can convey. I am merely pointing out it seems that the crimes that are committed now, even if they are fewer, are done for different motivations. I remember all the trouble makers I grew up with would steal and do drugs not because they wanted to watch as the world burned, but because they gained personal enjoyment out of it. Nowadays, it seems like the mindless, violent crime is merely there for no other reason than sadism or socipathy. The statistics, unfortunately, don't address the increasingly alarming motivations behind the underlying crimes.
Do the studies actually address the motivations behind the crimes and not just the number of crimes? I would love to actually read that part of the study if it were the case and check out their group samples.
These kinds of perceptions are very, very strongly influenced by the way crime is reported by the media, which is something that has changed over the years.
If your real point is that people are becoming "evil," then we're back to the point about every generation thinking that the next one is going to be unredeemable.
CornBurrito
Member
Right, but significantly less limited than your even more limited childhood experience and fallible human memory.
TheChocolateWar
Member
That may be the case, but unless they directly address the issue, then my limited inductive reasoning will prevail. If they do not even address the issue, then they are not evidence for or against the issue, which merely leaves us with annecdotal evidence, although weak. I remember kids being smarter about their crime back in the day. More rambunctious, but smarter. Not as evil.
First, I am not sure why it matters what the motivation is in terms of this discussion. If overall the trend is downward, does it matter if you're killed because someone's motivation was they "only" wanted to rob someone's house, or if someone's motivation is "just" because they enjoy hitting someone in the back of the head? Sure, finding out the motivation matters if we're assessing how to stop even this reduced amount of crime. But it does not actually matter in our evaluation of which generation is "better" or "worse" than the other.
Furthermore, do you even know the sadistic shit humans have done to each other all throughout history openly and in far larger numbers? And this change has only largely come as a result of the progress of modern human conveniences via technology and better income opportunities for lower class.
NobleGundam
Banned
This is very true.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Motivations matter for the predictability of society. I could be reasonably safe in the 90s by wearing old, beat up jeans and looking kind of poor. Nowadays, a person will jump me even if I purposefully dress crappy and look like I am without a penny. That does matter for the person who fears walking down the street every day.
entremet
Member
If you're spanking a 18 year old you clearly have done a terrible job with raising your kids.
are you seriously talking about this shit when only two generations before, we had random african americans being dragged through the street?
Your interpretation of the glory days of whatever era you're from is just silly misguided nostalgia, an idealized vision of what you thought time was like, but never really was.
You could get beat up for random shit in any era. You could get killed by random shit in any era. The statistics can and have backed this up. If you think it is "slightly more" random than before, it still wouldn't matter, because statistically you'd still have the same amount of likelihood to die all else being equal. So as it mattered to your existence, your day-to-day would not actually play out any differently than any other generation. You would experience it and feel it no differently. Which is why every generation says the same shit you do, every single one. And not one has ever been right.
TheChocolateWar
Member
If the statistics do back this up, I would like to see them, that way I can feel moderately more safe as I walk down the street. The only statistics that have been provided in this thread so far is that the number of crimes are down. That does not address motivations, which is what I am getting at, and the predictability of the criminal mind. If the criminal mind is evolving, that does matter for everyone. A thousand jokers is more dangerous than a million Bernardos. (West Side Story reference)
As someone from Sweden, were spankings and the like was outlawed in the late 70's, the general concept seems rather primitive.
I suppose it's easier to say "I was spanked and I turned out fine" to avoid the cognitive dissonance of "I love my parents, but spanking is wrong"
I suppose it's easier to say "I was spanked and I turned out fine" to avoid the cognitive dissonance of "I love my parents, but spanking is wrong"
Sounds pretty naive tbh.
This is the silliest thing Ive ever heard. One for saying that kids in asian countries are more likely to commit suicide and two for saying that spanking is part of the reason.
Can we also correlate spanking to other things asians are known for? maybe we can attribute the high number of indian and asian doctors to corporal punishment too while were at it.
I don't necessarily believe spanking is the way to go, but I will say, I'm not too keen on the talk method either. Much like spanking, talking can travel onto dangerous territory too. Most people love the verbal abuse tactic... and that's one fucked up thing to deal with.
CornBurrito
Member
How is it silly to say that kids in Asian countries are more likely to commit suicide? Do they not have higher suicide rates?
And with corporal punishment (beyond spanking) being linked to mental illness, why is it silly to suggest it may be part of the reason for their higher suicide rates?
Im not gonna spend too much time on it since its up to you to defend your bs but here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414751/table/T2/
It might be better to say "The environment and upbringing children are more commonly put into in certain Asian countries have a higher tendency to lead to suicide."
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
He wasn't agreeing with you.
I wonder if this is the quivalent of watching a FOX pundit falling for a troll.
For the record neither do I.
Also Fuck Authority 
CornBurrito
Member
Thanks. Stats are good.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
I used to live in an asian country. Some families do cover up suicides. Many are not reported. Its fucking disgraceful that people aren't given help. Its fucking stigmatized man.
Main point being: Those facts may not be true because of cultural reasons.
I should also mention that as I'm currently reading the full article this executive summary above is of. The article is only about comparing positive punishment methods, it leaves all the other methods outside the scope.
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
I'm not entirely sure where you're going. Neither I, nor the research, has ever suggested that physical punishment be the sole reaction of a parent in rearing a child. I was responding directly to your statement that there were alternatives with the finding that physical punishment is more successful when those alternatives fail. To be clear, the alternatives are most certainly desirable but when they prove unresponsive in curbing the child's behaviour, appropriate spanking was demonstrated to be an effective response.
And no one was arguing otherwise. I would take that sentence more as an amusing aside to the "but Sweden banned spanking!" arguments. They did a quick statistical survey and showed a rise in minor to minor assault following the ban. Obviously the study isn't suggesting it was caused by a removal of spanking and the study only looked at data to 1994. Maybe the removal of spanking led to more child upon child physical aggression. Maybe after 1994, Swedish society found alternative ways to deal with that aggression as they adapted to a different parenting style. We don't know. But the stats are there for point of discussion and to demonstrate that things aren't straightforward either way.
This study basically reinforces the one I brought up which also only looked at the ages from 2-6. This meta analysis found a trivial but statistically significant negative outcome for children above the age of 7 but a non-significant below 7. I suppose, from this research, we can answer the OP's question with "spanking seems less desirable when a child is eight or older" which, coincidentally, is the age I've often heard when people stopped spanking their children during rearing in the first place.
I do find it interesting that this particular meta-analysis is more a cautionary example towards studies suggesting spanking has a significant negative effect than a study purporting that the practice should be outlawed.
I'm not sure what the argument is. Most posters put forward that spanking is barbaric and leads to significant negative outcomes for the child. However, neither of our research suggests that. Yes, there are alternatives and everyone suggests that parents employ those. Spanking is, as I've argued and most people "pro-spanking" do as well, that it is employed as a last means of discipline and never as the first or sole means. These meta-analysis also support that approach.
And I will add that both I and the article state that. Punishment, as a whole, is less desirable and less successful than reinforcement. However, there are situations that arise where punishment is the appropriate response over reinforcement (say, a child is about to insert a knife into an electric socket: you can slap their hand away [positive punishment] or take the child away from the socket [negative punishment]).
There's a difference in how you talk, there's also a difference how you use physical force.
Not all uses of force are punitive. For example you can use force to restrict, remove or steer for example, these can all be accomplished without inflicting pain or punishmen. The same as talking. It's not about whether you use physical or verbal means, it's how you use them and to what end.
Yeah. Like talking the child into having feelings of guiltyness all the time. Making it feel like it's the biggest monster and the worst kid in history even for the most petty mistakes.
And creating am atmosphere of paranoia for all eventual mistakes it could make. Like "Mommy won't love you anymore if you're not doing everything right." or "Everybody will get angry at you if your not the most perfect child in the world."
CornBurrito
Member
And to me anyone who uses the term "pussification" is likely to have some very unsavory views about transgenders, homosexuals, and women.
PeskyToaster
Member
If anything it should be extended. There are a lot of people in this world who need a good smack.
My term simply refers to children being babied these days to he point they are not well equipt to handle the adult world. I'm sorry if I offended you with my wording it was not meant like that at all.
CornBurrito
Member
Oh I'm not particularly offended. Just sharing my limited anecdotal experience I've had with people who use that specific term.
condompickle
Banned
He wasn't agreeing with you.
I wonder if this is the quivalent of watching a FOX pundit falling for a troll.
For the record neither do I.
Also Fuck Authority
i said i agree'd with his couple of words. why the fuck does my shit quote keep re appearing with the reply being, he's not agreeing with you. i don't even know anymore. i had too much caroot juice.
Where I'm going is that, there's a choice.
We can choose not to hit children, and we can choose to hit children.
If we know physical punishment are unnecessary in child rearing and yet we advocate physical punishment, we're advocating child abuse. All the unnecessary hits could be avoided without negative outcomes, yet we advocate hitting them.
Unnecessary harm to a child is all it boils down to
I agree. I feel like it needs to be mentioned more often. It's much like with cases of domestic disputes, sometimes the abuse isn't physical, it can be verbal and still cause tremendous suffering to the victims.
Most target spankings as the ultimate wrong that can be done to children, but that's not true at all. Much like cases of neglect where parents may not physically harm their kids but may starve them or isolate them as punishment, I don't know if spankings are worse. Some punishment can really cross the line no matter what it is.
A lot of people are victimized this way, and it's a shame it isn't brought up more often.
Definitely.
And there's many parents that will resort to this since there's no physical trauma to be shown. To be fair, much like parents who spank, these parents may not know this is problematic. A little extra push can't hurt right? But this pushing and manipulation is damaging too. Depression can very well develop in these kids.
Like those situations where kids are forced to achieve because their parents are trying to live through them. There's kids that are harshly scolded by parents for getting injured in a sport and possibly ruining their chances of success, instead of supporting them and trying to help them recover. Sometimes they're threatened to be disowned, or even pressed to work harder until they're on the brink of exhaustion.
Much like spanked kids, we will defend our parents (oh well if they weren't so hard on me I wouldn't have been successful, etc), but this is still questionable parenting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't really think there's an easy way to raise kids, and punishment can be harmful no matter what the method may be. :/
And yet, your research specifically said this was not the case. To equate spanking with child abuse is to really diminish the severity of true abuse. Two spanks on the bum that leaves no mark is nowhere on the same level as a child with bruises, black eyes and broken limbs. All the research makes this distinction and suggests that there are no "negative outcomes" from spanking a child beyond those a child would get with methods that don't involve these "unnecessary hits."
Also, as I said, there are niche moments where spanking is better than alternative methods--particularly when the child is unresponsive to those alternative methods. To say that "choosing spanking" is advocating "child harm" is as ludicrous and disingenuous as saying "choosing time outs" is advocating "child imprisonment."
So the children in your country are allowed voting, driving and smoking?
That might be less likely if it works against the child and it grows up to be a mentally ill looser.
And they are afforded similar legal protections unless your country also removed child abuse as a criminal offence.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Yes, because needlessly eliminating competition is definitely on a par with being beaten with a leather strap as a form of positive reinforcement. You don't seem straightened out at all if I'm being blunt, you seem incredibly off base on some important issues.
GAF, I enjoy visiting my local house of Ill repute for their wide range of dominatrix services. But after having my arse beaten so it glows like Rudolph's nose, and handing over all my wages, I'm never quite sure whether I should tip or not.
Of course, I'm referring to those instances where the child is successful or happy with their turnout. While it is fantastic that a lot of us are able to function and be great adults, we should still acknowledge that our parents possibly used some questionable methods if they have.
I agree that spanking is wrong and should be avoided, but I also have a 1-year-old who will one day truly test my stance on that, I am sure. She tests me on my yelling all the time already. I've broken a few times (not for some months now) but make a conscious effort not to do it as much as possible.
I started reading this topic last night but was on my phone and so even though this post and the corresponding ones after it are late, I wanted to add to the discussion.
One of the parenting books I read said that instead of praising the child, you should acknowledge what they've accomplished. According to said book, the child will then start seeking praise instead of wanting to learn the things that are just a part of being a grown individual (paraphrasing from memory here). So, instead of saying "Good job!" you say something like "I see you tied your shoes by yourself today."
Spanking specifically didn't come up in this book, but it suggested, and I have recently seen material in agreement, EMPATHY is the best approach when dealing with a misbehaving child.
I started reading this topic last night but was on my phone and so even though this post and the corresponding ones after it are late, I wanted to add to the discussion.
One of the parenting books I read said that instead of praising the child, you should acknowledge what they've accomplished. According to said book, the child will then start seeking praise instead of wanting to learn the things that are just a part of being a grown individual (paraphrasing from memory here). So, instead of saying "Good job!" you say something like "I see you tied your shoes by yourself today."
Spanking specifically didn't come up in this book, but it suggested, and I have recently seen material in agreement, EMPATHY is the best approach when dealing with a misbehaving child.
"You got an A on your spelling bee Timmy? Well done! Now get me the strap!!!"
I feel that all people have different levels of ableness to withstand abuse and human agression from early on and that's what actually makes them succeed or fail in life. A strong-willed child will suffer from the abuse but will try to ignore the trauma and become a successful adult. A sensitive child will suffer greatly from abuse and might never recover and stay traumatized for the rest of its life.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Did you just pat him on the butt for his stance?
Ok, I'll deviate from using the term child abuse. However all the research do not agree that there are "no negative outcomes" from spanking. For example a recent article by Gershoff states that:
I wanted to avoid bringing it up as it's a bit opinionated, like Larzelere who's written an article titled: "Punishment Enhances Reasoning's Effectiveness as a Disciplinary Response to Toddlers". The articles I posted posited that there is no gain in physical punishment methods over other methods and in my opinion that's the point. I'm still trying to find where this is sourced in the original article:
Spanking is advocating child harm as time outs are advocating child imprisonment in a way. However, in the grown up world imprisonment is seen as acceptable punishment method where as flogging is not.
- Status