Spanking... a two sided argument

[Galloism]

Yes, but I have no legal authority over that person.

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

Actually, all assault laws I'm aware of here in the states do not include spanking a child in the definition of assault, FYI.

[Des-Bal]

The countless studies that say things like "long term negative effects on children's development, intelligence and mental health" seem like reasons to me.

No it's not. That's why it's not a crime to let them watch television.

[Frisivisia]

The best way to teach kids to deal with their problems is with violence, and the constant fear of being physically assaulted is definitely good for their psyches.

[Chetssaland]

Yes, but I have no legal authority over that person.

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

No. Reliance on physical punishment is bad. Using spanking in a responsible manner has proven to be fine.

[Reichsland]

Yes, but I have no legal authority over that person.

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

Fair enough, allow me to rephrase that. There is no law against spanking my child. Like I said, you shouldn't go around spanking and hitting your child for every little thing.

[Des-Bal]

I'm pretty sure that if you go out into the street, grab a random stranger and start enthusiastically smacking their ass, you'll be arrested.

If you grab a stranger and start wiping their ass you'll be arrested. You cannot compare the interaction between a caregiver and a child in their care to that between two random people.

[Ovisterra]

Hey, what happens between consenting adults is none of-

Oh. Right. That kind of spanking. I don't see why being a kid's parent means you're suddenly allowed to assault them.

The problem with these threads is that they inevitably devolve into



anecdotal evidence, as we can see here.

Well there is other evidence too.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html

If you want this to devolve into linkposting, I'm happy to do so.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111109.htm
http://pediatrics.jwatch.org/cgi/conten ... 2012/815/3
http://apsa.org/About_APsaA/Position_St ... hment.aspx
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ ... hment.aspx

[Ovisterra]

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

Fair enough, allow me to rephrase that. There is no law against spanking my child.

There's your problem.

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

Actually, all assault laws I'm aware of here in the states do not include spanking a child in the definition of assault, FYI.

No shit.

The person I was replying to, however, said there was no law against spanking at all.

I'm pretty sure that if you go out into the street, grab a random stranger and start enthusiastically smacking their ass, you'll be arrested.

If you grab a stranger and start wiping their ass you'll be arrested. You cannot compare the interaction between a caregiver and a child in their care to that between two random people.

Do try to read my posts:

Yes, but I have no legal authority over that person.

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

[Chetssaland]

Well there is other evidence too.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html

If you want this to devolve into linkposting, I'm happy to do so.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111109.htm
http://pediatrics.jwatch.org/cgi/conten ... 2012/815/3
http://apsa.org/About_APsaA/Position_St ... hment.aspx
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ ... hment.aspx

You don't want anecdotal evidence and you don't want a source. What is this thread supposed to be then?

And you consider posting a source devolving the thread? I consider appeals to emotion and equating spanking with murder and medieval torture devolution.

EDIT: And to actually address your sources (something you didn't do for mine, by the way)...

The first is about corporal punishment in schools. Quite different from parental spanking. The second one requires you to have an account on the site. The third and fourth focus on the use of physical punishment alone. Obviously slapping a child and walking away is the wrong way to go. But using physical punishment and then reassuring them you are not mad at them and still love them, and telling them what they did wrong has proven to be an effective method of punishment.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, but you said there was no law against spanking. There is. Just like the law against murder. So why can't I murder my kid? Oh yes, because we have to draw a line. Preferably before long term negative effects set in. This is why spanking is bad.

There is a law against wiping a random persons ass. If you're going to talk in terms of the law it really helps to have the law on your side. If we're deciding that potentially negative long term effects is the line in the sand let's ban television, let's arrest every parent who doesn't put their child into a team sport, and god save the poor bastard who misses a family dinner.

[Reichsland]

The best way to teach kids to deal with their problems is with violence, and the constant fear of being physically assaulted is definitely good for their psyches.

Your assuming that my child lives in constant fear of being spanked, even though he might only get spanked three times a year at the most.

[Frisivisia]

The best way to teach kids to deal with their problems is with violence, and the constant fear of being physically assaulted is definitely good for their psyches.

Your assuming that my child lives in constant fear of being spanked, even though he might only get spanked three times a year at the most.

If he's afraid of doing bad things for fear of being hit, he's in constant fear.

[Nazis in Space]

I managed to get twelve lines into the OP before starting to laugh.

Yahoo answers?

wow

[Reichsland]

Your assuming that my child lives in constant fear of being spanked, even though he might only get spanked three times a year at the most.

If he's afraid of doing bad things for fear of being hit, he's in constant fear.

If my son does something that he knows he shouldn't have done, then he should expect some sort of consequence. I don't spank him for every little thing, only when he does something really bad. Usually time out and grounding suffice.

[Czechanada]

Children should be seen and not heard.

Whatever one does to ensure that is acceptable. *nods*

[Frisivisia]

If he's afraid of doing bad things for fear of being hit, he's in constant fear.

If my son does something that he knows he shouldn't have done, then he should expect some sort of consequence. I don't spank him for every little thing, only when he does something really bad. Usually time out and grounding suffice.

Exactly, that's why we torture prisoners... Oh, wait.

[Chetssaland]

Your assuming that my child lives in constant fear of being spanked, even though he might only get spanked three times a year at the most.

If he's afraid of doing bad things for fear of being hit, he's in constant fear.

That's quite the accusation right there. Got anything to back that up?

Bear in mind we're talking about a child who is spanked "three times a year at the most," not a child in an abusive family who is violently hit on a regular basis.

[Cashewbutter]

The point of punishment is to deter the action that triggers it because the person doesn't like the consequences of that action. That could be considered fear of the consequence. All punishments, whether physical or not, work that way, so to say spanking is bad because it causes fear but other punishments are okay makes no sense.

"Constant fear" only occurs when the punishments are unpredictable or otherwise inappropriately applied. Though this is anecdotal, I did NOT fear my father because he occasionally spanked me. I knew exactly what actions would lead to a spanking and why, both from prior experience and because he'd give me a verbal warning first. The punishment was easy to avoid by stopping whatever bratty thing I was doing.

[Quelesh]

I'm opposed to violence. The victim's youth does not justify violence against them. I think that violence against children is acceptable under the exact same circumstances in which violence against adults is acceptable - no more and no less.

Children are not adults. Children do not understand things in the way that adults do, they don't appreciate the long term harm of their actions on themselves others or society as a whole. What they can understand is "do what I say because I said it." Give them the carrot and the stick until their old enough to understand more mature motivations. If that requires spanking, then spank them if it doesn't then that's great.

Of course, some children understand things better than others do. Regardless, the fact that "children are not adults" does not justify hitting them. Sure, it's justified to yank their hand away from a hot stove, or to pull them back from walking out into traffic, or to hold them down if they're trying to beat the crap out of someone else, but it's equally justified to do the same thing to adults under the same circumstances.

It's just as justified to use necessary violence against children in order to prevent damage to persons or property as it is to use the same necessary violence against adults for the same reason. What's not justified is "I'm going to hit you because I think you were disrespectful to me" or "I'm going to hit you because you used a word I don't like" or "I'm going to hit you because you were making fun of your sister."

Well you don't have to fucking hit them unless they've done something really bad.

Like run across a road for example, or bite some kid's thumb and refuse to let go.

If anyone, child or adult, is running out into traffic, it's justified to reach out and yank them back. If anyone, child or adult, is biting onto someone else's thumb and not letting go, it's justified to use the minimum level of physical force necessary to make them let go. None of this justifies hitting children in circumstances in which hitting adults would not also be justified.

Physical pain is a natural consequence of doing certain "wrong" things ... things which are physically harmful to yourself. For these things, it's a great teacher. For instance, if you burn your hand on a hot stove, you're a lot more cautious next time you're around the stove.

Where it's not an effective teacher is where the recipient doesn't know what they did, which led to the pain. So for instance, what does a person learn from the pain of appendicitis? Nothing they did or didn't do led to the appendix fucking up. It teaches nothing, it's just miserable.

This is a good point. I would expand on this by saying that there's a difference between natural consequences and unnatural consequences. The pain of burning your hand on something hot is a natural consequence, and can be a valuable learning experience.

To use another example, if you make fun of your sister, you will alienate her from you. She won't like you as much, won't want to spend time around you, won't be inclined to help you when you need it, etc. That's a natural consequence of making fun of her, and most people, including most children, can pick up on these natural consequences. Being hit and humiliated by much bigger people, however, is an artificial, contrived consequence, and doesn't really teach anything except that it's okay to hurt people physically to make them do what you want them to do.

Well, most people know the difference between a spanking and assault.

And that difference would be? Spanking an adult would count as assault in any criminal court. The only exception here is that the victim is a child.

Exactly. There are no circumstances in which violence against a person is justified only because that person is a child and would not be justified if that person were an adult.

And that difference would be? Spanking an adult would count as assault in any criminal court. The only exception here is that the victim is a child.

Putting an adult on time out would constitute unlawful imprisonment. The exception here is that the victim is YOUR child.

Children don't belong to their parents.

[Quelesh]

Putting an adult on time out would constitute unlawful imprisonment. The exception here is that the victim is YOUR child.

This^

Taking away an adult human's belongings would constitute theft. So by using this logic any way you punish your child would be considered a crime. Why do you hate discipline so much?

I oppose the use of violence and coercion against others, no matter their age.

great way to teach children that people might do want you want if you threaten them with violence

Not really. When you spank a child, you make sure they know why they are being spanked. You don't just go around threatening to spank them for every little thing.

You could do the same thing before hitting an adult, but the fact that the adult knows what they did that you don't like wouldn't justify hitting them. Hitting teaches that the use of violence to get what you want is acceptable. Violence begets violence.

[Esternial]

Discipline is important. While I don't see any serious harm in spanking, I'm convinced it can be substituted for a less 'hand-on' approach.

[The 12 Dimensions of Jesse Anderson]

My first post and it's a damn spanking comment.

Spanking is great only for the ladies who enjoy it. In other cases, it ain't good.

And I saw what ya did with that title.

[Des-Bal]

You could do the same thing before hitting an adult, but the fact that the adult knows what they did that you don't like wouldn't justify hitting them. Hitting teaches that the use of violence to get what you want is acceptable. Violence begets violence.

And if you put them on time out they'll start kidnapping people.

[Quelesh]

My first post and it's a damn spanking comment.

Spanking is great only for the ladies who enjoy it. In other cases, it ain't good.

And I saw what ya did with that title.

Or for the non-ladies who enjoy it. As long as it's wanted it's all good. When it's unwanted is when it strays into unfortunate territory. Some people in this thread say that unwanted spanking is okay, but only if the recipient of the unwanted spanking is a child.

[The 12 Dimensions of Jesse Anderson]

My first post and it's a damn spanking comment.

Spanking is great only for the ladies who enjoy it. In other cases, it ain't good.

And I saw what ya did with that title.

Or for the non-ladies who enjoy it. As long as it's wanted it's all good. When it's unwanted is when it strays into unfortunate territory. Some people in this thread say that unwanted spanking is okay, but only if the recipient of the unwanted spanking is a child.

Nah man. Ya got to want to be spanked. Otherwise, as I said, it ain't good for none. Growns or children. The physical and emotional damage caused it's shit. I'm sorry for those who say so. This is the 21st century for God's shake!