Bjomesphat
Banned
If you have to hit your child under any circumstance you're not fit to be a parent.
If you have to hit your child under any circumstance you're not fit to be a parent.
I'm not the biggest fan of spanking but I absolutely detest these little shit that treat their parents like shit, get slapped for cursing or acting a fool then call the cops like it's a crime to get popped.
Define "hit".
Do you know the difference between a spanking and a beating? It's quite vast.
![]()
Really?
That's fucked up.Sorry pal
Assuming you're a real parent and not an armchair parent?
Where's that study that basically corporal punishment results in aggression and hyperactivity and has been proven time and again to be an ineffective means of punishment.
Who needs a study when you have anecdotes of "I turned out fine"?
It was a bad way of saying that, having experienced it myself, physical punishment isn't nearly the horrifying event that some make it out to be.
You don't know me, but I'm not, nor have I ever been, hyperactive and aggressive as a result of my parent's discipline.
So you became a decent person despite it. Okay.
No offence, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything. And who knows, maybe you'd be a better person now if you hadn't been physically punished? That list posted above suggests at least a correlation between countries with high levels of social well being and equality and a lack of legal spanking.
I've never had to hit a dog to train it.
I did, it was one of the most painful things I ever had to do and it yielded no results. The trainer said I need to hit him hard a few times but I stopped when I did it twice, it's just too much.
It feels, really, really bad man. Especially when the dog gives you his selfless, unconditioned love only to be disciplined in return. I never owned a personal dog ever since, but I do have other family pets in my house. I never hit any of them ever again.
I'm not sure how this relates to the topic but I just wanted to share.
Imagine if there was a way to combine both threads?
"Spanking a child crying from a circumcision"
Gaf would explode.
What the fuck kind of a person tells you that you need to hit a dog to train it?
Jesus christ.
He really does.He sounds like a dumbass.
It is odd that people seem to recognize science has value and is good, but then are so often anti-science. Especially when it comes to social science. Social science tends to have one of two reactions when met by someone who is (perhaps subconsciously) anti-science.
1) Lol did we need a study to confirm this? Everybody knew this.
2) Bullshit sample size (even if it is statistically fine), bullshit study, my personal experience says otherwise, etc...
People value anecdotes more than they do data, even if they think they are pro-science.
how did that work out for you?
oh
If your kid still needs spanking by 12 i'll say your in trouble.
how did that work out for you?
oh
Its a simple matter of people believing what they can see. If you have a family where the Granddad was spanked, the Dad was spanked, and the son was spanked and they all turned out perfectly fine, it will be understandably difficult for them to accept that they have done harm since their personal observation completely contradicts it.
Its reasons like that that social science is often not respected -- even within the scientific community there has long been debate over whether it should even be called a science because it deals in concepts and data that cannot be quantified or predicted. It doesn't help that social sciences are also often manipulated or obfuscated by a corporate, political, or personal agenda.
What the fuck does any of that have to do with what she said?
Well it is one reason why social science isn't respected. But people do it even for the hard sciences. "Homeopathy/chiropracty/crystals worked for me!" Or the anti-vaccer movement.
People do believe what they see. But our own perceptions aren't the best. Hard data is best. I have no problem with criticism of social science, but laypeople's criticism amounts to "this contradicts MY personal anecdotes" or some bullshit about the sample size not being big enough, when statistically it often is big enough.
Absolutely, people do it with the hard sciences too. Social science is just much more susceptible to it, which is why there seems to be so much denial compared with other sciences. You call it hard data but its really not though. Social science even admits that its findings are not universally consistent or predictable; it deals in likely outcomes. Which is why someone can say "well, this works for my child" and they may be correct, a psychologist has no way of proving otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that social sciences are not deserving of respect. I think there is tremendous value in understanding human behaviors and its silly for people to out right dismiss it. However, I do think that when we're talking about individuals, that the data should be under greater scrutiny.
Child abuse and mental disorder. I challenge anyone to find me a study which supports spanking. To all those who support spanking, what would you recommend the optimum force and velocity of the attack be? You know, because it's not a slippery slope at all. And also, do you have any other defence than the completely unbiased "durr hurr I turned out fine!!!11"?
I think it is pretty clear that I found the contrast between her lack of punishment as a child and her desire for punishment as an adult interesting, but carry on, social warrior.
A meta-analysis of 88 research studies testifies to many long and short-term dangers of corporal punishment and concludes that corporal punishment of children is “associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health.”[88] A 2003 review of available research into parental punishment concluded that "strong evidence exists that the use of physical punishment has a number of inherent risks regarding the physical and mental health and well-being of children".[92]
Analyzing data from 3,870 children and families participating in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, the researchers found that while many children were spanked at 1 year of age, those who were still being spanked at age 3 demonstrated significantly more behavioral issues at 5 years than those who were not spanked at 3 years of age.
"There is a significant link between the two," says Afifi, an assistant professor of epidemiology in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Canada. "Individuals who are physically punished have an increased likelihood of having mental health disorders." Approximately 2% to 7% of mental disorders in the study were linked to physical punishment, she says.
The study's findings add evidence to the argument that "physical punishment should not be used on any child, at any age," she says.
Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior
Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.
this concept of inflicting pain for "their own good" is so twisted and counterintuitive I'm surprised it has manger to endure into the 21st centuryPositive reinforcement is more effective w significantly better long term effects. I think there is a balance between positive and negative reinforcement weighting much more on the positive side. And punishment should be in the form of ignoring. Depends on the function of the behavior (attention, escape, or to obtain a tangible). But hitting? Never needed. Teaching with words and kinder actions? Absolutely. We are models of behavior...why inflict pain if we'd punish such actions
Alright.
Out of curiosity, isn't that what most spanking is? For very young children, and not as the only form of child-rearing, but as one of them?
For example, the last link says "frequent use."
In the study from Afifi, there was also this-
"A 2005 scientific review he co-authored, of studies comparing spanking with non-physical discipline methods, identified an "optimal type of physical discipline," referred to as conditional spanking, and said that when it was used as a backup to nonphysical discipline it was better at reducing noncompliance and antisocial behavior.
While the new study rules out the most severe cases of physically lashing out at children, , "it does nothing to move beyond correlations to figure out what is actually causing the mental health problems," says Larzelere. He criticized the study's reliance on memories of events from years earlier, and says it's not clear when punishment occurred. "The motivation that the child perceives and when and how and why the parent uses (spanking) makes a big difference. All of that is more important than whether it was used or not."
^- Seems to indicate that it's actually better at reducing bad behavior when used with nonphysical discipline.
I don't have children, but I'll liken my dog back to a small child (one that doesn't fully understand the concepts of humanity).
I teach my dog to poop outside. When it did, every time it went outside, which was everyday, three times a day... I praised him or fed him a treat. I petted and cooed over him for his success.
However, that doesn't mean the dog will know pooping inside is bad. That means the dog will only know pooping outside is good.
Once the dog decides to try pooping inside, a quick smack to the rear with a "bad boy," then carrying him outside, letting him finish, and then praising him, would seem to be more effective than simply saying "bad boy" and moving him out.
In the above case, I would want research about whether a quick smack is detrimental to the dog's mental and physical health any more than a mother's nip or simply saying "no." If the answer is no, why is it "wrong"?
(This applies to kids as well- and that study: how can we be sure it's the physical punishment causing problems, and not simply a more mentally hyper/active/etc kid to begin with?)