Spanking... a two sided argument

[Nidaria]

There is nothing wrong with spanking. For the most unruly children, it is the only way to discipline them. Also, it is not really physical harm, as all it is temporary pain.

[Frisivisia]

There is nothing wrong with spanking. For the most unruly children, it is the only way to discipline them. Also, it is not really physical harm, as all it is temporary pain.

Starving children is only temporary. What about beating them? Bruises go away.

[The Orson Empire]

There is nothing wrong with spanking. For the most unruly children, it is the only way to discipline them. Also, it is not really physical harm, as all it is temporary pain.

Starving children is only temporary. What about beating them? Bruises go away.

It only causes a bruise if you hit them too hard.

[Frisivisia]

Starving children is only temporary. What about beating them? Bruises go away.

It only causes a bruise if you hit them too hard.

Exactly, even better!

[Mike the Progressive]

There is nothing wrong with spanking. For the most unruly children, it is the only way to discipline them. Also, it is not really physical harm, as all it is temporary pain.

Starving children is only temporary. What about beating them? Bruises go away.

Then all of that is OK too. And you know else? If your kid bitches about being hungry, give him a little Belushi. If he's thirsty, give him a litte hooch. Problem solved.

[Frisivisia]

Starving children is only temporary. What about beating them? Bruises go away.

Then all of that is OK too. And you know else? If your kid bitches about being hungry, give him a little Belushi. If he's thirsty, give him a litte hooch. Problem solved.

And if he needs a smoke? Crack.

[The Holy Therns]

This isn't a two-sided argument so much as a two-cheeked argument.

I'll... show myself out.

[Constaniana]

This isn't a two-sided argument so much as a two-cheeked argument.

I'll... show myself out.

Such a cheeky post.

[Vixenville]

spanking always reminds of something naughty for adults, however hitting a child on the left or right hand gently and then giving them a minute or two to think about what they have done is fair and teaches them right from wrong.
vixenville

[Salandriagado]

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.

On the contrary, there are adult equivalents of all of the above.

[Czechanada]

There is nothing wrong with spanking. For the most unruly children, it is the only way to discipline them. Also, it is not really physical harm, as all it is temporary pain.

That's the same argument that is used to support the beating of women.

[Blekksprutia]

And I don't see
anything wrong with it as long as it is done with love instead of anger.

-? From Yahoo Answers

Ah, corporal punishment. But with love!

[Priory Academy USSR]

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.

On the contrary, there are adult equivalents of all of the above.

The last one (it's adult equivalent, at least) isn't acceptable in the West any more though, is it?

[Salandriagado]

On the contrary, there are adult equivalents of all of the above.

The last one (it's adult equivalent, at least) isn't acceptable in the West any more though, is it?

I meant all of the ones that he was using as examples. Sorry, that was badly worded.

[Blekksprutia]

There is nothing wrong with spanking. For the most unruly children, it is the only way to discipline them. Also, it is not really physical harm, as all it is temporary pain.

Butts shouldn't be smacked except in cases of love play

[Quelesh]

It's probably wrong because you're using a child for sexual gratification.

You didn't actually answer my question. Why is painful but non-sexual touch okay, even if the touch is unwanted, while sexual but non-painful touch is wrong, even if the touch is not unwanted? This seems arbitrary and nonsensical to me; if the latter is wrong, the former should certainly be wrong as well.

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.

Some children, of course, may attempt to alternately claim and then deny self-ownership, depending on which is most convenient for them, but many do not, or would not if they were allowed to consistently act as self-owners in our society.

And our own society alternately treats children and teenagers as competent and incompetent, mature and immature, responsible and irresponsible, like adults and like toddlers, depending on which is more convenient at the time. In particular, teenagers are treated as responsible adults when they're accused of doing something wrong, but they're treated like they're incompetent and irresponsible in most other contexts.

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 [i[expression[/i] of it.

That's an interesting take on monarchism. I can respect it, though I don't agree with the religious basis, but it seems to me that your conception of monarchism is, fundamentally, anarchism, or at least individualist anarchism. If everyone is their own king, their own sovereign, with sovereignty over no one but themselves, then there are no rulers.

I also don't see a difference between "no rulers" and "no one rules." People don't rule themselves; they own themselves. "Rule" is necessarily by one person over another, and involves coercion and force. There cannot be rule without subjects.

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.

Whether they're called stewards or owners may affect the theoretical basis for the force parents use against their child offspring, but it doesn't make such force into non-force.

[JuNii]

@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.

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.

Ahh... Using an IPad, so I get a blank screen. Thanks anyway.

[Hathradic States]

I don't see what is wrong with a good spanking now and then. Fuck, I got them all the time when I was little, and I turned out a great. A little fucked up in the head, but that was my own fault.

[Cashewbutter]

Correlation does not imply causation. Children with behavioral problems are likely to be punished more often than children who don't, and it's difficult to tease apart how much of their future difficulty is caused directly by the punishments and how much is simply the result of having behavioral problems in the first place. It's probably a bit of both.

I would be wary of any study that lumps all spanked children together and compares them to those that were never punished that way. Children without behavioral disorders are going to be overrepresented in the non-spanking group; there's a strong selection bias. And it's possible that high-frequency, abusive beating causes problems, very low-frequency spanking without anger does not, and the average is misleading in two directions: understating the damage caused by genuine physical abuse, and overstating the damage caused by infrequent spanks.

Pretty much the only thing you can take away from the studies is something that's obvious anyway: severe physical abuse is bad, and a complete lack of corporal punishment is better than that. Well, no shit.

If you measure the health of people who don't drink alcohol vs. people who do, you'll find a higher incidence of health problems in the drinkers. Conclusion: drinking is bad? Maybe, maybe not. You have to compare non-drinkers vs. light drinkers vs. heavy drinkers, and control for other factors (is there a higher incidence of drug use or smoking among heavy drinkers? How many of the non-drinkers have a rich religious life and/or other positive health habits? etc.) The truth is that a little bit of wine once in awhile is good for you, but "none" is better than "too much."

I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for spankings. The worst thing you can do is do it too much or otherwise improperly. But the studies don't adequately control for other factors and are not reliable for comparing "none" to "a few times a year or less."

[The Grand Union]

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:

Whether they're called stewards or owners may affect the theoretical basis for the force parents use against their child offspring, but it doesn't make such force into non-force.

Well, this is where it becomes a bit more involved.

For the left-anarchist, all coercion and hierarchy are to be absolved. For the right-anarchist (like myself), the only coercion to be repudiated is vertical (legislative) coercion. The only hierarchy to be repudiated is vertical (involuntary). Thus any social coercion is acceptable - such as homosexuality being marginalized or otherwise discouraged here in the south. Thus any voluntary hierarchy is acceptable - such as religion. As soon as any coercion or hierarchy becomes legislated and involuntary, we oppose it. Regardless of our particular cultural bent - I'm a cultural conservative but I will object to any attempt to legislatively marginalize homosexuality anywhere (not to say that I necessarily disapprove of it, either).

Since a child voluntarily submits their sovereignty to the will of their parents routinely and asserts their sovereignty inconsistently, spanking is considered horizontally coercive - a consequence. Of course there are those dishonorable individuals who use spanking as punishment or otherwise abuse their children. Those individuals are sociopaths and deserve to be ostracized by society (I'd also argue against legislatively punishing parents guilty of abuse in an anarchy, but given the statist nature of our social organization, legislative consequences for abusers is acceptable, if not ideal).


It isn't that spanking is non-force. It's that it isn't vertically coercive. I (as a right-anarchist - an individualist anarchist) use it as a consequence rather than a punishment. I'm not punishing bad behavior. I'm adhering to the principle that certain actions necessitate certain reactions. It's horizontally coercive. For instance, I've said before that I've only ever spanked my son twice. He enjoys the freedom to tell me when I anger him. He lays out the consequences for any behavior I exhibit that displeases him (if I show affection to his mother before him, he announces that I've made him angry and that he may not watch batman - my favorite superhero - for a little while until he feels that I've learned my lesson). When I did spank him, he negotiated with me about the number of strikes he felt he deserved. He knew that his behavior necessitated a consequence. He knew that the consequences he had already suffered were not sufficient to halt the behavior (throwing a tantrum in toys r us resulted in us leaving the store, the tantrum continued in the car which resulted in us going home instead of to the park, the tantrum continued resulting in me turning on my video game that he is not dexterous enough to play, the tantrum continued resulting in a time out in his room, the tantrum continued and became destructive to his toys in his room resulting in a spanking). He understood that, while in a fit of anger he had disregarded the consequences and chosen to press me. He also saw that at no point throughout his tantrum did I become angry, raise my voice, or respond with derision to him. Even as he glared at me after the strikes were laid out and told me that he hated me a little bit, I could see the little wheels turning.

I'm not violating his sovereignty by spanking him. I'm showing him how to better assert and maintain that sovereignty while remaining mindful of the sovereignty of others.

It is force, I agree. But I'm not willing to leave my son alone and naked before the flowing tides of ideas and philosophies - an atomized existence free of culture (tradition, kin, religion, etc etc).