Child Abuse/Corporal Punishment Discussion

[The East Marches]

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.

Or it could be argued that the militarized police route could work in conjuction with a better safety net ala Belarus.

As far as I remember, I'd call the raft of mandatory minimum sentencing and the much vaunted "100,000 extra police on the streets" of the Clinton Era the start of the major downturn in crime.

The highest crime areas are seeing a spike in crime due to lowered rates of enforcement. The "Ferguson Effect" as police are afraid to do their jobs.

[Salandriagado]

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?

No. It has been declining slower than in areas that use less stupid methods.

[The East Marches]

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.

Go full Machiavelli. Turbo punishment would work best. You can't be a reoffender if you can't have the opportunity to commit crime again right?

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

You must live in a different world than I do. I've found they are fairly rare occurances.

[The East Marches]

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

What does the officer have as recourse should you not voluntarily submit? Violence, that is the underlying factor.

[Conserative Morality]

Or it could be argued that the militarized police route could work in conjuction with a better safety net ala Belarus.

Problem: Belarus has crime rates above Mexico.

Above fuckin' Mexico.

That's like being the only kid who doesn't get a "Gold star for participation". You almost gotta work at it.

As far as I remember, I'd call the raft of mandatory minimum sentencing and the much vaunted "100,000 extra police on the streets" of the Clinton Era the start of the major downturn in crime.

Which coincided with the generation of kids growing up for the first time in generations without significant amount of lead in their young systems.

The downturn in crime also started in HW's term, although no one likes to talk about that because no one seems to like HW for some reason.

The highest crime areas are seeing a spike in crime due to lowered rates of enforcement. The "Ferguson Effect" as police are afraid to do their jobs.

Studies and statistics have shown that the so-called Ferguson Effect is a myth.

Go full Machiavelli. Turbo punishment would work best. You can't be a reoffender if you can't have the opportunity to commit crime again right?

Machiavelli also said that methods of becoming feared should not be methods of becoming hated as well, and that cruelty is not actually a good tool at all for keeping order.

[Giovenith]

Let me elaborate on the, "you don't know how labs work" post.

When researchers figure this stuff out, they are looking at the real world. They aren't keeping kids locked up in sterile white rooms and randomly spanking some of them to see who turns into an angry adult, they figure it out by comparing families who actually use spanking vs. those who do not. Results have shown that families who do spank have turned out less well-adjusted children with a higher tendency toward anger and violence. When they conclude that the death penalty is ineffective, they are comparing the crimes rates of areas that have it vs. those that do not. Results have shown that areas with the death penalty have worse crime rates than those that do not.

The only ideas that have been shown not to be practical in the real world are yours. Insisting over and over that reality works one way does not stand up to actually observing reality.

What does the officer have as recourse should you not voluntarily submit? Violence, that is the underlying factor.

Actually the first recourse is forceful restraint, which while it can have accidents, is not designed to be violent. Something that is forceful is not necessarily violent. The few times the police actually have to resort to some form of violence it is meant to be for the purpose of swiftly stopping a person from causing harm to others, not to punish them on the spot for their crimes. There is a difference between violence as a means of necessary physical confrontation and violence as a tool for punishment. If violence were the punishment, police officers would be expected to be the shit out of you regardless with whether or not you comply.

...

Which they have been known to do, but you know, ostensibly, they're not supposed to. The subject here is violence as retaliation for breaking the rules, not violence as a means of stopping someone else from doing something.

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.

Go full Machiavelli. Turbo punishment would work best. You can't be a reoffender if you can't have the opportunity to commit crime again right?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure inflicting the kind of violence that Machiavelli was talking about on a child would already land you in prison.

[Conserative Morality]

What does the officer have as recourse should you not voluntarily submit? Violence, that is the underlying factor.

Violence to disable and restrain, that is to say, no more than necessary to subdue the individual, not the use of violence to inflict pain as a retributive or preventative measure.

So holding a child, whom you are presumably much stronger than, by the shoulders rather than beating their ass with a cane.

[AiliailiA]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

[Giovenith]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

Right. Obviously you shouldn't presume anything about someone's life, but one of the obvious questions that comes up after hearing something like that is do most dysfunctional people have awareness that they are in fact dysfunctional?

[Norstal]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

I was never spanked and I became a programmer.

Clearly everyone should be spanked.

[Norstal]

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.

Go full Machiavelli. Turbo punishment would work best. You can't be a reoffender if you can't have the opportunity to commit crime again right?

You make it seem like it's impossible for a crime to repeat itself after you executed someone.

Hint: it's possible; you got the wrong guy.

[AiliailiA]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

Right. Obviously you shouldn't presume anything about someone's life, but one of the obvious questions that comes up after hearing something like that is do most dysfunctional people have awareness that they are in fact dysfunctional?

Probably not. Aggression or violence may be losing them friends and opportunities, but unless it gets them in serious trouble I think they probably see it as just how they are, and count the benefits of others "not fucking with them".

Same for general mental impairment. Anywhere near average people think how they are is "fine" and are probably disinclined to blame their parents anyway.

[AiliailiA]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

I was never spanked and I became a programmer.

Clearly everyone should be spanked.

Oh man, that's terrible! You have my sympathies.

If only you'd got a spanking or two you could be a truck driver or debt collector now.

[Ganonsyoni]

I was never spanked and I became a programmer.

Clearly everyone should be spanked.

Oh man, that's terrible! You have my sympathies.

If only you'd got a spanking or two you could be a truck driver or debt collector now.

Or a cop

[Europe and Oceania]

Maybe, but you will note that the conditions you gave were explaining why the child is being spanked, not joking about it, and only spanking as a last resort. The duration or severity of the punishment was not something you mentioned. Do you wish to add that to your list of conditions under which corporal punishment is acceptable?

Yes I would. One slap and one slap only, and it shouldn't be able to leave a mark

Again, this is just your definition of what's okay and what's not okay. Just because "a little spank" here and there is okay for you
doesn't mean that it's okay for everyone, everyone is affected differently by it which is why any kind of physical punishment is bad and
it shouldn't be done in the first place to avoid any traumatizations.

The fact is, you don't to need to physically punish your kids, if there is no corporal punishment for murderers or rapists in prison then why
should there be corporal punishment for children?

[Freefall11111]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

I was never spanked and I became a programmer.

Clearly everyone should be spanked.

We need more programmers. Ban spanking.

[Aelex]

Nobody died from being spanked and a lot of kids would have probably grown out to be better humans being if they had got a couple or two when they were younger.

[Freefall11111]

Nobody died from being spanked and a lot of kids would have probably grown out to be better humans being if they had got a couple or two when they were younger.

The evidence suggests that's not the case, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Giovenith]

Nobody died from being spanked and a lot of kids would have probably grown out to be better humans being if they had got a couple or two when they were younger.

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

The evidence says it makes kids worse, not better. If you want to prove otherwise, you're going to need something a little more substantive than just, "Nuh uh, it totally works."

[Aelex]

The evidence suggests that's not the case, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Evidence of what? The fact that since the two last decades that you started to try to treat kids as if they were grown-up adults with who you could reason on an equal ground with and not fucking kids, more and more of those children have started to grow-up from being little piece of bad mannered shit to big piece of bad mannered shit with the Millenials being the pinacle of the success of this how so liberal way of parenting?

Also, don't take it bad but sociology is far from being a sure science, double time when we're talking about the Anglo-Saxon.

[Europe and Oceania]

"My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!"

*punches wall*
*smokes cigarette*

Right. Obviously you shouldn't presume anything about someone's life, but one of the obvious questions that comes up after hearing something like that is do most dysfunctional people have awareness that they are in fact dysfunctional?

Right, this another good issue you brought up. The whole anecdotal argument of "My parents spanked me and I turned out fine!" is the fact
they think they're fine when in fact a lot of them are probably unaware of their own dysfunction.

Plus the fact that even if some person actually turned out "fine" it doesn't matter and it's irrelevant because the fact is that
physical abuse of any kind affects everyone differently so that's why it shouldn't be done in the first place. And studies prove the fact
that using corporal punishment means they are much more likely to traumatize them and have violent behavior among other issues.

If we don't use corporal punishment for murderers and rapists then why should we use corporal punishment for kids?

[Aelex]

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

The evidence says it makes kids worse, not better. If you want to prove otherwise, you're going to need something a little more substantive than just, "Nuh uh, it totally works."

Ho, I'm not defending spanking on itself as a way to educate kids. I'm defending it as a tool part of an healty education. If you want to raise kid, you need to use carrot and stick to teach them to behave so it become instinctive for them when they will reach the age of reason.

[Europe and Oceania]

The evidence suggests that's not the case, but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Evidence of what? The fact that since the two last decades that you started to try to treat kids as if they were grown-up adults with who you could reason on an equal ground with and not fucking kids, more and more of those children have started to grow-up from being little piece of bad mannered shit to big piece of bad mannered shit with the Millenials being the pinacle of the success of this how so liberal way of parenting?

So your suggestion is let's spank the crap out of our children so they don't become what You claim are "little of peices of bad mannered shit" so they can get screwed up by their parents abuse and instead become violent and/or are more likely to commit a crime or be incarcerated?

It seems that as time when on we have generally gotten more civilized as society compared to when using those barbaric practices such as
stoning and torture etc. in the Middle Ages. You want to conserve an old uneducated practice that has been proven it doesn't work and can
in fact screw up your children, so if you were in the Middle Ages you would probably be one of those that tried to conserve their barbaric
practices by giving your Anecdotes of why it's better.

[Dinake]

Corporal punishment, in moderation, can be good for the development of a child. It should not be used as a first resort, but it's not exactly child abuse.
Past generations used corporal punishment extensively, and their children grew up to be better folks than these moderns.
http://www.fisheaters.com/spanking.html

[Aelex]

So your suggestion is let's spank the crap out of our children so they don't become what You claim are "little of peices of bad mannered shit" so they can get screwed up by their parents abuse and instead become violent and/or are more likely to commit a crime or be incarcerated?

It seems that as time when on we have generally gotten more civilized as society compared to when using those barbaric practices such as
stoning and torture etc. in the Middle Ages. You want to conserve an old uneducated practice that has been proven it doesn't work and can
in fact screw up your children, so if you were in the Middle Ages you would probably be one of those that tried to conserve their barbaric
practices by giving your Anecdotes of why it's better.

Did you actually READ the post following the one you responded to? Or were you too lazy and just jumped to the strawmen?
Anyway, the fact that using mild corporal punishment as a tool part of a wider healthy education (french method) do help to rise better behaved kids than either always giving up to their will or "reasoning" with them when they're clearly too young for that (anglo-saxon method) isn't so much proved by anecdotal evidences then it is by empirical ones. Just look at the countless books wrote by American and British mothers and psychologists stating how astonished they are that "Ho my God! Giving your kid a frame does help him to grow into something else than self-centered shit stain!"