Spanking... a two sided argument

[Jormengand]

Actually, I was hoping that the answer to that question would be no, but apparently this person measures his IQ at regular intervals. Thus, implement plan B.

*Looks.* Over there! Out in the distance! I think I can see the topic in the distance! Maybe we should try to get back there?

No, I didn't measure my IQ at regular intervals, I was undergoing psychological testing during my childhood.

In honesty, it doesn't make much difference.

[Maineiacs]

You all know where I stand on this; I'm not going to subject you all to another rant. All I will say is that my parents' brand of discipline made me the seething ball of neuroses I am today.

[The Grand Union]

This sky is Jupiter.

Would you like to continue making my point for me?

And what was that point?

[The Grand Union]

Then you didn't read my non-religious endorsement of spanking.

OK, so your statements are now the sole exception I've personally experienced to what is otherwise a remarkably consistent trend. (A traditionalist defense of the practice, in which the observation that it was common in the past is used as an argument that it should be used in the present and future.)

Doesn't really alter my opinion on whether the practice is rational or humane, but duly noted.

(I don't regard "sovereignty" as the core issue, or even an especially important issue--that you can extrapolate a right to do something from a premise of your own choosing has no bearing on whether it's a good idea in terms of its objective effects on the welfare and development of the child affected, a question I'm not presuming to answer on your behalf but which I regard as the paramount criterion in any discussion of this topic.)

Oh, absolutely. I'm of the opinion that if the parent is honorable, then honor comes naturally. One shouldn't need a 'commandment' to force obedience.

[The Grand Union]

Then prove that spanking is 'bad for your welfare'?

Oh please, learn to Google. It's the FIRST THING THAT COMES UP.

That makes sense.

[The Grand Union]

Then prove that spanking is 'bad for your welfare'?

Here you go.

All of those links make perfect sense.

[Jormengand]

Oh please, learn to Google. It's the FIRST THING THAT COMES UP.

That makes sense.

Here you go.

All of those links make perfect sense.

Well done, you have made about your first true statements this thread! Congrats!

[JuNii]

See that link RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT above your post? It's feeling lonely. You might want to click it.

And, if you read the study to which it alludes, it states how most of the eight hundred studied children were 'punished' in a manner that, with alarming frequency, shot straight to levels qualified as abusive.
75% of 'substantiated physical abuse' cases arose through the administering of corporal punishment; meanwhile parents who spanked their children were seven times more likely to commit an act of 'severe violence' involving a physical punch or kick.
It further highlights issues of abuse by beating age 0-1 infants, resulting in such infants being more than twice as likely to be hospitalised in their first year than those who weren't.

Which is a beating.
Not a punishment.

Can you link to the original study? I'm curious as to what capital punishment they used and at what frequency. Also that last bit about beating age 0-1 infants is somewhat disturbing...

[Jormengand]

And, if you read the study to which it alludes, it states how most of the eight hundred studied children were 'punished' in a manner that, with alarming frequency, shot straight to levels qualified as abusive.
75% of 'substantiated physical abuse' cases arose through the administering of corporal punishment; meanwhile parents who spanked their children were seven times more likely to commit an act of 'severe violence' involving a physical punch or kick.
It further highlights issues of abuse by beating age 0-1 infants, resulting in such infants being more than twice as likely to be hospitalised in their first year than those who weren't.

Which is a beating.
Not a punishment.

Can you link to the original study? I'm curious as to what capital punishment they used and at what frequency. Also that last bit about beating age 0-1 infants is somewhat disturbing...

Do you mean CORPORAL punishment? Anyway, it was here.

[JuNii]

Can you link to the original study? I'm curious as to what capital punishment they used and at what frequency. Also that last bit about beating age 0-1 infants is somewhat disturbing...

Do you mean CORPORAL punishment? Anyway, it was here.

Read the article, it does not document what type of abuse and the frequency. You asserted, by referencing the article that a slap on thr wrist is just as harmful as a slap on the head. I tried the links in the article but most don't seem to work.. I'm looking for the study that documents the details of the punishments.

[Jormengand]

Do you mean CORPORAL punishment? Anyway, it was here.

Read the article, it does not document what type of abuse and the frequency. You asserted, by referencing the article that a slap on thr wrist is just as harmful as a slap on the head. I tried the links in the article but most don't seem to work.. I'm looking for the study that documents the details of the punishments.

That's why I posted more sources. And then someone posted a Google search, which contains hundreds of sources.

[JuNii]

Read the article, it does not document what type of abuse and the frequency. You asserted, by referencing the article that a slap on thr wrist is just as harmful as a slap on the head. I tried the links in the article but most don't seem to work.. I'm looking for the study that documents the details of the punishments.

That's why I posted more sources. And then someone posted a Google search, which contains hundreds of sources.

And... All those sources didn't put out the figures that Samozaryadnyastan posted, hence why I was asking Samozaryadnyastan where and whatnot.

[Jormengand]

That's why I posted more sources. And then someone posted a Google search, which contains hundreds of sources.

And... All those sources didn't put out the figures that Samozaryadnyastan posted, hence why I was asking Samozaryadnyastan where and whatnot.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I was answering the wrong question.

[JuNii]

And... All those sources didn't put out the figures that Samozaryadnyastan posted, hence why I was asking Samozaryadnyastan where and whatnot.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I was answering the wrong question.

No problem. I'm concerned on what group documented the beating, (not spanking in my definition,) of a 0 - 1 year old infant.

[Quelesh]

Spanking should never be used, in my opinion.

Tell me, considering the fact that I'm not allowed to walk up to a stranger and whack him across the butt with my belt, why should I be allowed to do so to a child?


EDIT:

Before anyone goes: it's my child, I can do whatever I want, consider the fact that even though you can own a dog you're still not allowed to beat it...

And parents don't even own their offspring. They're not allowed to hit their age-of-majority-or-above offspring either. They're only legally allowed to hit their under-the-age-of-majority offspring. So you can't hit all of your offspring - you can only hit those who have not yet reached the age of majority. And you can't hit everyone who hasn't yet reached the age of majority - you can only hit those who are your offspring.

But parents of under-the-age-of-majority offspring can consent to other people hitting those offspring. They can also consent on behalf of their under-the-age-of-majority offspring to surgery. But they can't consent on behalf of those offspring to sex. So causing an under-the-age-of-majority/consent teenager pain is okay with parental consent, but causing pleasure is not okay even with parental consent.

Is anyone else confused yet?

To support spanking either requires accepting that Children are not full persons and do not have the same protection as Adults, or a shit ton of doublethink.

Most pro-violence-against-children folks, I think, don't really believe in the personhood of children, despite what some of them may say.

To support spanking either requires accepting that Children are not full persons and do not have the same protection as Adults, or a shit ton of doublethink.

As has been stated by others, many punishments that a parent would give a child are inappropriate when applied to other adults outside specific law enforcement situations. You can't send an adult to his/her bedroom and force him/her to stay there for a set period of time for calling you a name. You can't take away his/her physical possessions as a form of discipline. You could refuse to drive him/her to a party that you'd already promised to drive him/her to, but you can't prevent the person from arranging alternate transportation. The fact that you can't spank an adult says nothing, in either direction, about whether or not it's okay to discipline a child that way. It's irrelevant.

You shouldn't do those things to children either, because children are entitled to the same bodily sovereignty as adults. It is acceptable to use violence against children in the same circumstances in which it is acceptable to use violence against adults - no more and no less.

Yeah, teaching people that might makes right on an individual level is Totally Not A Bad Thing^TM.

I see it more as teaching children that incorrect behaviour has consequences.

Behavior does, certainly, have consequences. Children should be allowed to experience the natural consequences of their actions without artifically contrived punishments getting in the way and teaching them that it's okay for bigger, stronger people to physically hurt smaller, weaker people to get what they want.

Depends entirely on context.
I remember being struck in a situation where I was about to do something that would cause me a lot of harm and was completely ignoring requests to do otherwise.
if the spanking or hitting will lead to less harm by preventing an action that could seriously damage the childs wellbeing, it's entirely acceptable.
As a go-to punishment it should be outlawed.

An example would be picking up the shiny bleach bottle and saying "NAH! I WANNA DRINK IT!" when told to put it down, followed by opening the cap.


The preferable solution is ofcourse to try and ensure such situations cannot arise, but every parent will make a mistake in this regard.
As for slapping as a punishment, in my view it is psychologically damaging and leads to sadism

Even that situation, I think, is very unlikely to require hitting. At most it's just likely to require reaching out and grabbing the bottle. Just like if someone starts running out into traffic, all that requires is reaching out and yanking them back, not bending them over and hitting their ass repeatedly afterward.

[The New Sea Territory]

I do not believe that parents have the right to do physical harm to their children.

Unless the child has initiated the aggression against the parent, then it would be self defense.

Non-Aggression Principle!

[Quelesh]

That's the thing, parents can easily understand how just one exposure to a barking dog might lead to a child developing a phobia of dogs, they might also understand how their primary school child might develop a fear of going to school if they get hit once by an older child, they might even understand when their teenage daughter gets slapped once by her boyfriend and develops a fear of dating....but getting them to understand that just one incidence of violence by themselves on a very small child might just have some long lasting consequences seems nigh on impossible

no we reaaly dont. we hope the kid picks himself up and gets back on the horse. kid gets hit at school i xpect the kid to tell me and i deal with it so school does not become a tramatic experience. a dog scares a kid, its the parents job to acclimate the kid to dogs. if you allow a one off to tramatise a kid, in most cases you have not done your job as a parent.

How is it possible for one person to allow, or not allow, an event to traumatize another person? Parents don't get to decide how their children feel about things.

Giving children the same rights as adults is ridiculous. There's a reason that 7-year-olds can't vote, drive cars, enter legal contracts on their own accord, or join the military. They have fewer rights AND fewer responsibilities because the parents are expected to exercise rights on their behalf and also take care of the responsibilities that the child is not ready for.

There is a reason that children aren't allowed to do those things solely on the basis of their chronological age, and it's a bad reason. People develop, both physically and mentally, at wildly varying rates and in very diverging ways, and competence, where it must be determined, should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Yeah, corporal punishment works? How are those Menendez brothers doing these days?

As an ex-preschool teacher, I have studied discipline pretty intently, I would never resort to physical discipline (of course I was trained in alternatives) but I can understand the frustrations of parental units that have no training whatsoever. Our school used to put on free seminars for the parents on issues such as these, I think we helped both the parents and the children with them. Parenting classes ? Sure.

I think that discipline must necessarily come from within. People can only discipline themselves. External punishment is not discipline at all; it is merely force.

By the same logic, you have no rights until you recite the UDHR in its entirety?

a child does not have bodily sovergnty. a child can not legally consent to any medical procedure, you think a 2 year old wants a vacination? or an appendectomy if one is required. the parent gives permission for the surgery. there are plenty of good arguments against spanking, bodily sovergnty of the child is not one of them.

Everyone has bodily sovereignty, including children. I think it's terribly arrogant to think that children's bodies belong not to them but to us.

Human rights are not universal, not self-evident, and certainly not inherent. The only self-evident right is self-ownership. All other rights stem from that one right. However, a child is under the stewardship of their parents. Why? Because self-ownership is not inherently manifested - it is inherently recognized. In order to manifest self-ownership, one must assert responsibility for themself. A child cannot do this. They lack the social skills, the motor control skills, the vocabulary, and the will to provide for themself. Therefore, they are, necessarily placed under the stewardship of their parents. A child must learn to manifest that self-ownership that everyone else around them recognizes. During that transitional phase, the parents wield complete authority over the child's sovereignty until the child begins to assert - or manifest - their own self-ownership.

Every child does this.

As I mentioned before, the angst laden teenage years in which teenagers buck their parents authority is precisely a example of the manifestation of sovereignty - of self-ownership.

No one is an island free of influence.

Denying the parent the ability to reinforce consequences (or punishment) while saddling them with the obligation of responsibility for the life of another (while simultaneously asserting their culpability for a failure to provide) is, quite simply, ridiculous. Parenting styles may vary. Abuses may exist. But those rare occasions where abuse does take place in no way necessitates rhetoric or the (il)logical conclusion that a parent must be prevented form maintaining their stewardship over the child. If I'm going to go to prison because society holds me in contempt for starving he who is, according to society, completely sovereign and therefore outside my ability to punish, then it is not I who fails to make sense. It is those who assert such twaddle.

You imply here that children, as a demographic, are categorically incapable of manifesting, or asserting, self-ownership, but this is simply not true. Children assert self-ownership all the time. But adults typically respond by forcefully denying the self-ownership that the child asserts.

I basically agree, however, with your past paragraph, which is why I would remove both punishment and culpability. I think that children should be able to seek out their own choice of living arrangements if their current situation is unacceptable to them (currently they are prohibited from doing so, and this prohibition is ultimately backed up by police force), and that parents should not be obligated (again currently backed up by police force) to keep their offspring in their home.

[Jormengand]

There is a reason that children aren't allowed to do those things solely on the basis of their chronological age, and it's a bad reason. People develop, both physically and mentally, at wildly varying rates and in very diverging ways, and competence, where it must be determined, should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

I would actually have to disagree on this one. It would be nigh impossible to make sure that children were judged at the same rate (how do you determine whether or not someone is "competent" enough to buy alcohol?), and a mistake with this judgement could risk their safety. Although, I suppose that with driving and such people would still have to pass a test.

[Quelesh]

<---- this guy is an anarchist. Remember?

An "anarcho-monarchist," according to your sig, which seems like a contradiction in terms to me, as "anarchy" means "no rulers" and "monarchy" means "one ruler."

And anarchy is about the elimination of force, hierarchy and coercion. How does an anarchist support force, hierarchy and coercion between adults and children? A society in which adults are in control of children generally, or in which parents are in control of their child offspring specifically, cannot be an anarchist one.

Oh? Why is that? And how will you tie this dismissal laced with ridicule into my argument about spanking, hmmm?

Okay, YOU JUST CALLED THE COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION. This is related to the fact that humans do, in fact, have rights. This is related to the fact that children have rights. This is related to our argument. Would you like me to make it MORE painfully obvious?

By my reading of his post he seems to be calling national governments criminal organizations, an assessment with which I would agree.

If you view an organisation which gives rights as a criminal organisation, if you would like to live in a world with no government (and thus no rights) then why should I trust your opinion of rights? The fact that "The UN is a criminal organisation" is so far your ONLY counterargument to the blinding truth that children have rights is at best disconcerting.

Lack of government does not mean lack of rights. Unfortunately, it seems that TGU would grant rights to adults while denying them to children.

Why is it that every single argument I've ever heard in favor of corporal punishment for children comes from people who think a millenia-old book which recommends stoning your children to death if spanking doesn't stop them from "disrespecting" you contains "some pretty good advice on the subject"?

Hint: invoking barbaric laws from ancient history as an endorsement of a practice doesn't exactly help to make the case that what you're advocating is rational and humane.


I have a four year old son. Basically every single thing he ever does is him imitating something he saw an older person do. Children learn what appropriate behavior is by watching adults. Every thing I've ever imposed on him as punishment for misbehavior has been mirrored in how he acts when he doesn't get something he wants. (Which is the only level on which children can really comprehend rules at that age.) He threatens to give people timeouts when he's angry--it's really funny.

I don't spank him, obviously, because I'm trying to teach him that inflicting physical pain is not how a person should handle disagreements.

In fairness, I haven't seen the Bible invoked as justification for violence against children very much at all. Good thing too, as the Bible isn't good justification for anything.

This violates bodily sovereignty, as they didn't consent to anything.

You're talking about it likes molestation, it's spanking not a fisting.

You make an interesting comparison. Why is it okay to touch a child's ass for the purpose of causing the child pain (but only if you have no sexual motivation for doing so), but bad to touch the same child's ass for the purpose of sexual gratification (even if the touch causes no pain)?

[Quelesh]

I got spanked. It had no damage on my IQ.

How do you know?

There is a reason that children aren't allowed to do those things solely on the basis of their chronological age, and it's a bad reason. People develop, both physically and mentally, at wildly varying rates and in very diverging ways, and competence, where it must be determined, should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

I would actually have to disagree on this one. It would be nigh impossible to make sure that children were judged at the same rate (how do you determine whether or not someone is "competent" enough to buy alcohol?), and a mistake with this judgement could risk their safety. Although, I suppose that with driving and such people would still have to pass a test.

Indeed, people have to pass a test already in order to get a driver's license; the age limit is both discriminatory and unnecessary. A test certainly could be devised regarding alcohol (perhaps measuring understanding of the physiological effects of alcohol, ways to avoid alcohol poisoning, etc.), but that comes with its own set of problems, and ultimately I would still oppose the use of physical violence to prevent people who haven't passed the test from consuming alcohol.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

@Quelesh
It's probably wrong because you're using a child for sexual gratification.
Unwanted abuse of a person for another's sexual gratification is, of course, illegal and the abuse of a minor for such purpose has its own separate statutes.

Meanwhile, I don't see requiring a licence for alcohol consumption is going to go down well with most people.

And, if you read the study to which it alludes, it states how most of the eight hundred studied children were 'punished' in a manner that, with alarming frequency, shot straight to levels qualified as abusive.
75% of 'substantiated physical abuse' cases arose through the administering of corporal punishment; meanwhile parents who spanked their children were seven times more likely to commit an act of 'severe violence' involving a physical punch or kick.
It further highlights issues of abuse by beating age 0-1 infants, resulting in such infants being more than twice as likely to be hospitalised in their first year than those who weren't.

Which is a beating.
Not a punishment.

Can you link to the original study? I'm curious as to what capital punishment they used and at what frequency. Also that last bit about beating age 0-1 infants is somewhat disturbing...

The study is linked in the actual article (where it references subscription to some Canadian magazine).
I think only the 'analysis' section is available, but that's the only part I read.

It's buried within the text a little, it took me a while to find it.
I called the punishment of 0-1 infants beatings because, well, what else can you call that? Especially given the incidence of injury that results from it.

[The Grand Union]

Human rights are not universal, not self-evident, and certainly not inherent. The only self-evident right is self-ownership. All other rights stem from that one right. However, a child is under the stewardship of their parents. Why? Because self-ownership is not inherently manifested - it is inherently recognized. In order to manifest self-ownership, one must assert responsibility for themself. A child cannot do this. They lack the social skills, the motor control skills, the vocabulary, and the will to provide for themself. Therefore, they are, necessarily placed under the stewardship of their parents. A child must learn to manifest that self-ownership that everyone else around them recognizes. During that transitional phase, the parents wield complete authority over the child's sovereignty until the child begins to assert - or manifest - their own self-ownership.

Every child does this.

As I mentioned before, the angst laden teenage years in which teenagers buck their parents authority is precisely a example of the manifestation of sovereignty - of self-ownership.

No one is an island free of influence.

Denying the parent the ability to reinforce consequences (or punishment) while saddling them with the obligation of responsibility for the life of another (while simultaneously asserting their culpability for a failure to provide) is, quite simply, ridiculous. Parenting styles may vary. Abuses may exist. But those rare occasions where abuse does take place in no way necessitates rhetoric or the (il)logical conclusion that a parent must be prevented form maintaining their stewardship over the child. If I'm going to go to prison because society holds me in contempt for starving he who is, according to society, completely sovereign and therefore outside my ability to punish, then it is not I who fails to make sense. It is those who assert such twaddle.

You imply here that children, as a demographic, are categorically incapable of manifesting, or asserting, self-ownership, but this is simply not true. Children assert self-ownership all the time. But adults typically respond by forcefully denying the self-ownership that the child asserts.

If that was the implication, then I apologize, as I did not intend to make it sound that way. I agree that Children are capable of and do assert self-ownership. The issue for them, however, is that they will absolve themselves of that self-ownership just as quickly when they seek attention from the parent. Thus they do not possess whatever rights are in the UDHR inherently. Whatever rights they do have exist at the whim of their stewards.

I basically agree, however, with your past paragraph, which is why I would remove both punishment and culpability. I think that children should be able to seek out their own choice of living arrangements if their current situation is unacceptable to them (currently they are prohibited from doing so, and this prohibition is ultimately backed up by police force), and that parents should not be obligated (again currently backed up by police force) to keep their offspring in their home.

That makes sense.

[The Grand Union]

<---- this guy is an anarchist. Remember?

An "anarcho-monarchist," according to your sig, which seems like a contradiction in terms to me, as "anarchy" means "no rulers" and "monarchy" means "one ruler."

Anarchism OR Monarchism. Not both. It's a recognition of the individual as the only sovereign on the planet. It's a recognition of anarchism and monarchism as the only moral forms of government.

Also, anarchism isn't "no rulers." That's a mistaken trope cast against us by statists and, unfortunately, endorsed by pop-anarchists. Anarchism is "no one rules." As in there isn't a single sovereign that trumps the sovereignty of the individual. Monarchism isn't "one ruler," either. It's "one sovereign." The foundation for monarchism, the legitimization of monarchism, hinges on the sovereignty of God and the nature of the monarch being chosen by God to act as the secular expression of His will on earth. Monarchism isn't defined by the existence of Kings and Queens, they exist in other structures of governmental power. It's defined by where the authority and sovereignty of the monarch is derived. A monarch doesn't draw his power from the "will of the people" but, rather, the "will of God."

In this way, we can see that anarcho-monarchism is far from a contradiction in terms. If the individual is completely sovereign, and a King only draws his sovereignty from the will of God, then that must mean that each individual is his own King (hence the "totem" nature of any monarch present in an anarcho-monarchist milieu). The monarch isn't the end all for governmental power structure, he's the expression of it.

And anarchy is about the elimination of force, hierarchy and coercion. How does an anarchist support force, hierarchy and coercion between adults and children? A society in which adults are in control of children generally, or in which parents are in control of their child offspring specifically, cannot be an anarchist one.

Note that I'm not "support[ing] force, hierarchy and coercion between adults and children." I specifically referred to the relationship between parents and children as "stewardship." Had I said "ownership," then your confusion would be understandable.

According to wiki:

Stewardship is an ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources. The concepts of stewardship can be applied to the environment[1][2], economics[3][4], health[5], property[6], information[7], theology[8], etc. Stewardship is linked to the principle of sustainability.

[The Grand Union]

That makes sense.

All of those links make perfect sense.

Well done, you have made about your first true statements this thread! Congrats!

I've yet to make false statements. What you mean to say is that you're surprised that I said something that you can't dismiss based on a differing worldview. What you mean to say is that you had assumed that, since I self-identified as an anarchist, I was a nutbag. Upon seeing my acknowledgment of the logic in those links you find yourself approving of the fact that I'm not insane. Of course I'm not. I made my position on spanking clear. I made my position on the existence of rights clear. Unable to make a counter-logical argument, you simply responded with derision and dismissal. And here you find yourself unable, once again, to make any sort of constructive commentary. Hence another round of derision and dismissal hidden as a backhanded compliment.

[Solsteim]

Spanking just for shock value if a child does something excessively bad is okay i guess, but generally i am quite against it as it can normalise violence, has been shown to lead to bad behaviour and simply isn't necessary.