Child Abuse/Corporal Punishment Discussion

[Conserative Morality]

Do you think that violence works as a means of enforcing your will? That seems to be the underlying question.

No. Even as long ago as Machiavelli and Roman Republic people understood this. Violence is only useful as a tool to destroy your enemies or prevent an ongoing violation of your desires. It does nothing to prevent future offences.

Spanking is not uncommon nor should it be considered child abuse or impact a parent's suitability for custody. It is a tool like anything else. Employed properly it does in fact get results.

Except for, you know, all the studies that show it has a negative effect on kids.

But yeah, sure, I was a rule-abiding little kid because my mother spanked me and not because my grandparents taught me that violence isn't the answer. I wasn't particularly traumatized, but neither did it much affect my behavior. All it did was create a very strained relationship with my mother.

[The East Marches]

It's not a double standard to think that a spanking is different than feeding a kid drain fluid. These are two totally different levels of things. One is actual abuse, the other disciplinary measures taken by the parent. To equate the two is a joke.

I'm not equating the two as the same. I am saying that regardless of how bad which ever one is, both have been demonstrated by countless scientific studies and research to have a long-lasting, overall negative effect on children's health and future behavior. "I could be doing something worse" is not an excuse for bad actions of any degree.

So why are you okay with an action that has been objectively shown to do way more harm than good to children?

Because objectively speaking spanking works. You have to establish some form of boundaries and consquences when a child is young and can't reason.

A three year old can't reason in the same manner as a teenager. Asking it to stop throwing a tantrum in public or acting like a brat doesn't work. They have to be shown such behavior is not acceptable.

Society did not fall apart and was not plagued by hordes of criminal delinquents before this latest trend.

[Conserative Morality]

Because objectively speaking spanking works. You have to establish some form of boundaries and consquences when a child is young and can't reason.

Right, and the only way to do so is to inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain. Wow, it's a good thing my grandparents spanked me all the time instead of engaging in limited physical coercion and threats of privilege removal to restrict or restrain me when I was being a little shit.

Even a three year old understands that actions have consequences. Go ahead, trying telling a kid you'll take away his dessert if he takes another breath. He'll hold his breath for a long goddamn time.

A three year old can't reason in the same manner as a teenager. Asking it to stop throwing a tantrum in public or acting like a brat doesn't work. They have to be shown such behavior is not acceptable.

And the way you show them that is by humiliating them and getting violent with them, right?

Wow, that really showed them that being a shithead isn't appropriate!

Society did not fall apart and was not plagued by hordes of criminal delinquents before this latest trend.

Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure the modern era is the most peaceful and least crime-ridden age thus far.

[Salandriagado]

I'm not equating the two as the same. I am saying that regardless of how bad which ever one is, both have been demonstrated by countless scientific studies and research to have a long-lasting, overall negative effect on children's health and future behavior. "I could be doing something worse" is not an excuse for bad actions of any degree.

So why are you okay with an action that has been objectively shown to do way more harm than good to children?

Because objectively speaking spanking works. You have to establish some form of boundaries and consquences when a child is young and can't reason.

A three year old can't reason in the same manner as a teenager. Asking it to stop throwing a tantrum in public or acting like a brat doesn't work. They have to be shown such behavior is not acceptable.

Society did not fall apart and was not plagued by hordes of criminal delinquents before this latest trend.

You have a strange definition of either "objectively" or "works", because objectively, Spanking doesn't work at all. Note that crime rates have been falling in line with the decline in corporal punishment (not claiming a causal link, just refuting your claim of a causal link the other way).

[The East Marches]

No. Even as long ago as Machiavelli and Roman Republic people understood this. Violence is only useful as a tool to destroy your enemies or prevent an ongoing violation of your desires. It does nothing to prevent future offences.

I disagree. The implicit reason we are kept in line is the ability of the state to commit violence against us. Violence does infact work. It is a very effective means of getting one's point across.

Except for, you know, all the studies that show it has a negative effect on kids.

But yeah, sure, I was a rule-abiding little kid because my mother spanked me and not because my grandparents taught me that violence isn't the answer. I wasn't particularly traumatized, but neither did it much affect my behavior. All it did was create a very strained relationship with my mother.

And I have a very good relationship with my mother. The point I am trying to make is that each child is different. What will work with one will not work with another. Parents should have the ability to have access to use what they will think best. Otherwise as I mentioned previously, we may as well turn over child raising to the state. Baring that, some form of mandatory parenting class so the State can establish want standards it wants.

[Conserative Morality]

I disagree. The implicit reason we are kept in line is the ability of the state to commit violence against us. Violence does infact work. It is a very effective means of getting one's point across.

Right, which is why the death penalty has been proven to have a positive effect on criminal behavior.

Oh, wait.

And I have a very good relationship with my mother. The point I am trying to make is that each child is different. What will work with one will not work with another. Parents should have the ability to have access to use what they will think best. Otherwise as I mentioned previously, we may as well turn over child raising to the state. Baring that, some form of mandatory parenting class so the State can establish want standards it wants.

Though child care classes are a good idea, I don't think mandatory "Don't be a shithead" classes should really be necessary in a healthy society.

[Norstal]

And I have a very good relationship with my mother. The point I am trying to make is that each child is different. What will work with one will not work with another. Parents should have the ability to have access to use what they will think best. Otherwise as I mentioned previously, we may as well turn over child raising to the state. Baring that, some form of mandatory parenting class so the State can establish want standards it wants.

What happens if we find this one method of parenting that universally just doesn't work?

[Giovenith]

I'm not equating the two as the same. I am saying that regardless of how bad which ever one is, both have been demonstrated by countless scientific studies and research to have a long-lasting, overall negative effect on children's health and future behavior. "I could be doing something worse" is not an excuse for bad actions of any degree.

So why are you okay with an action that has been objectively shown to do way more harm than good to children?

Because objectively speaking spanking works.

No it does not. You can keep chanting that to yourself over and over and over again until you're blue in the face, but when we actually put that claim to the test in real labs, with real critical observation, with real educated analysis, it has managed to fail miserably every single time.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyle ... story.html
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

Asking it to stop throwing a tantrum in public or acting like a brat doesn't work. They have to be shown such behavior is not acceptable.

The alternative to spanking is not "asking." Plenty of people have no trouble commanding their child to stop and giving them consequences if they do not which don't involve violence.

[Maineiacs]

There's not a "vast difference" between spanking and abuse, as an earlier poster put it. Spanking is abuse; the fact that there are worse forms of abuse does not change that.

[The East Marches]

Right, and the only way to do so is to inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain. Wow, it's a good thing my grandparents spanked me all the time instead of engaging in limited physical coercion and threats of privilege removal to restrict or restrain me when I was being a little shit.

Even a three year old understands that actions have consequences. Go ahead, trying telling a kid you'll take away his dessert if he takes another breath. He'll hold his breath for a long goddamn time.

Your grandparents had their methods. I doubt they are applicable to some of the situations I have seen/been in.

And the way you show them that is by humiliating them and getting violent with them, right?

Wow, that really showed them that being a shithead isn't appropriate!

Sure thing. Is that not what we do when people transgress societal norms? What would you call getting tasered or beaten when resisting arrest?

Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure the modern era is the most peaceful and least crime-ridden age thus far.

I could make the disingenous claim that crime is on the rise once again but I will concede the point as you are correct.

[Conserative Morality]

The alternative to spanking is not "asking." Plenty of people have no trouble commanding their child to stop and giving them consequences if they do not which don't involve violence.

My grandparents used to hold me by my shoulders in the corner if I refused to cooperate and stay there of my own volition.

But spanking is the only way.

[Salandriagado]

No. Even as long ago as Machiavelli and Roman Republic people understood this. Violence is only useful as a tool to destroy your enemies or prevent an ongoing violation of your desires. It does nothing to prevent future offences.

I disagree. The implicit reason we are kept in line is the ability of the state to commit violence against us. Violence does infact work. It is a very effective means of getting one's point across.

Speak for yourself (and indirectly, for just how badly this effected you). I follow the law because I try to behave in a way that doesn't harm others, and helps them as much as possible, and the law generally is a reasonable starting point for a set of guidelines for how to do the former.

Except for, you know, all the studies that show it has a negative effect on kids.

But yeah, sure, I was a rule-abiding little kid because my mother spanked me and not because my grandparents taught me that violence isn't the answer. I wasn't particularly traumatized, but neither did it much affect my behavior. All it did was create a very strained relationship with my mother.

And I have a very good relationship with my mother. The point I am trying to make is that each child is different. What will work with one will not work with another. Parents should have the ability to have access to use what they will think best. Otherwise as I mentioned previously, we may as well turn over child raising to the state. Baring that, some form of mandatory parenting class so the State can establish want standards it wants.

Does that include killing the child? Does it include cutting off a limb?

[Conserative Morality]

Sure thing. Is that not what we do when people transgress societal norms? What would you call getting tasered or beaten when resisting arrest?

Consider the rate of redicisvism in the United States.

Is that what you call deterrence? Or is it perpetuation of a problem?

When people transgress social norms, the answer is not "Beat them or taser them". The answer is "arrest them", that is to say, restrain them rather than inflict pain upon them, with violence being employed (ideally) as a last resort. This has been a basic principle of policing since the mid 1800s, but the increasingly militarized and aggressive police forces in the Anglosphere seem to have forgotten this.

[The East Marches]

Right, which is why the death penalty has been proven to have a positive effect on criminal behavior.

Oh, wait.

Then why bother enforcing the law with that logic? There have to be consquences for actions. I do support the death penalty as it does serve as the ultimate consquence. The logical continuation of the idea that violation of the law will have a negative outcome.

Though child care classes are a good idea, I don't think mandatory "Don't be a shithead" classes should really be necessary in a healthy society.

The question I was attempting to resolve with that was trying to decide what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. If the State decides to legislate something to the effect of deciding what is acceptable means of parenting, then has the obligation to ensure its citizens understand that right? Unfortunately I don't believe a healthy society is possible. "Don't be an asshole" classes are a way around that problem.

[The East Marches]

And I have a very good relationship with my mother. The point I am trying to make is that each child is different. What will work with one will not work with another. Parents should have the ability to have access to use what they will think best. Otherwise as I mentioned previously, we may as well turn over child raising to the state. Baring that, some form of mandatory parenting class so the State can establish want standards it wants.

What happens if we find this one method of parenting that universally just doesn't work?

Universally is a point of view

[Norstal]

Right, which is why the death penalty has been proven to have a positive effect on criminal behavior.

Oh, wait.

Then why bother enforcing the law with that logic? There have to be consquences for actions. I do support the death penalty as it does serve as the ultimate consquence. The logical continuation of the idea that violation of the law will have a negative outcome.

We arrest criminals to rehabilitate them and rehabilitation isn't punishment. Or at least it shouldn't be. Ideally it is so that criminals would become good citizens.

[The East Marches]

Sure thing. Is that not what we do when people transgress societal norms? What would you call getting tasered or beaten when resisting arrest?

Consider the rate of redicisvism in the United States.

Is that what you call deterrence? Or is it perpetuation of a problem?

When people transgress social norms, the answer is not "Beat them or taser them". The answer is "arrest them", that is to say, restrain them rather than inflict pain upon them, with violence being employed (ideally) as a last resort. This has been a basic principle of policing since the mid 1800s, but the increasingly militarized and aggressive police forces in the Anglosphere seem to have forgotten this.

But if the overall crime has been declining, wouldn't this be an indicator of success for the anglosphere's increasingly severe and militarized policing methods?

[Norstal]

What happens if we find this one method of parenting that universally just doesn't work?

Universally is a point of view

Universally, if you waterboard a child they'd not gonna grow up well.

[Giovenith]

Right, which is why the death penalty has been proven to have a positive effect on criminal behavior.

Oh, wait.

Then why bother enforcing the law with that logic? There have to be consquences for actions.

What is with this assumption that violence is the only possible consequence?

People are not suggesting that there shouldn't be consequences for actions. They are saying that some consequences have been objectively demonstrated to not only not teach the person anything but actively make the problem worse whereas others have been shown to actually work. They would rather avoid the former and promote the later, and surprise surprise, things like violence against children and the death penalty have been shown to fall in the former.

Just because you get a nice little catharsis out of the idea of either doesn't mean they work. So far, your only argument has been, "Well we need to do SOMETHING, and I feel like this is just fine so..." When we have actual studies say that these things DO NOT WORK and MAKE THINGS WORSE, the response should not be to push that all aside and keep doing it anyway because we feel like it should work.

[Conserative Morality]

Then why bother enforcing the law with that logic? There have to be consquences for actions. I do support the death penalty as it does serve as the ultimate consquence. The logical continuation of the idea that violation of the law will have a negative outcome.

There are consequences for action. The removal of privileges, freedom, or property. That is enforcement of the law - to paraphrase Machiavelli, the only two sensible methods of violence are to either inflict such a state on your enemy that they cannot act against you, or to inflict little enough damage that you don't risk their permanent enmity.

The question I was attempting to resolve with that was trying to decide what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. If the State decides to legislate something to the effect of deciding what is acceptable means of parenting, then has the obligation to ensure its citizens understand that right? Unfortunately I don't believe a healthy society is possible. "Don't be an asshole" classes are a way around that problem.

I quite disagree. Healthy societies are actually pretty common in places.

[The East Marches]

Note to gentlemen I am replying to, I'm replying via mobile so I can't keep up as well as I like. Forgive me if my reply times decreases as my connection is spotty. Apologies in advance.

[Conserative Morality]

But if the overall crime has been declining, wouldn't this be an indicator of success for the anglosphere's increasingly severe and militarized policing methods?

No, because the Anglosphere is experiencing higher rates of crime than countries that continue to police by Peel's Principles or ideas akin to them.

We're benefiting from a lower level of violence as social repression both in the legal system and in social institutions has become less harsh, but our police forces have reacted in the opposite way. And where the police are most militarized, crime is likewise highest. You can argue that it's the other way around, the police become militarized because of high crime, but the lasting high crime rate does little for the argument that repressive measures in a police force work.

[The East Marches]

Then why bother enforcing the law with that logic? There have to be consquences for actions.

What is with this assumption that violence is the only possible consequence?

People are not suggesting that there shouldn't be consequences for actions. They are saying that some consequences have been objectively demonstrated to not only not teach the person anything but actively make the problem worse whereas others have been shown to actually work. They would rather avoid the former and promote the later, and surprise surprise, things like violence against children and the death penalty have been shown to fall in the former.

Just because you get a nice little catharsis out of the idea of either doesn't mean they work. So far, your only argument has been, "Well we need to do SOMETHING, and I feel like this is just fine so..." When we have actual studies say that these things DO NOT WORK and MAKE THINGS WORSE, the response should not be to push that all aside and keep doing it anyway because we feel like it should work.

How else can a state or authority figure impose it's will? By asking nicely? "Please don't murder that woman"

There is an implicit threat and ability behind the state's law. Just as there is an implicit threat with the authority of a parent's voice when commanding a child.

What may sound very nice in a lab is often times not partical in the real world.

Note: I've rolled two replies into for sake of speed and brevity

[Conserative Morality]

How else can a state or authority figure impose it's will? By asking nicely? "Please don't murder that woman"

[Giovenith]

Incarceration.