Corporal Punishment -A Parental Right or Wrong?

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

Hmmm, back when I was younger I had the questionable pleasure of being on the receiving end of corporal punishment. Spanking my behind, slapping me in the face, twisting and lifting me up by my ear, hitting me with the belt across the back.

It certainly had immensely good short term effects.

I am not sure yet on the long term effects. My memories of the punishment dished out by my parents tend to be ones of pride rather than resentment. In fact, my primary resentment towards my parents always came from their non-violent means of enforcing their rules. Taking the computer cable/Nintendo DS, forcing me to engage in sports, forcing me to go on walks, forcing me to wash the dishes, forcing me to eat three more meals over the course of the afternoon, constantly asking me about my weight etc.

Violence is...something I do not employ. Perhaps I like to engage in it in my games, preferring games with violence/action/war at their core but tend to rather attempt to solve things peacefully and without violence when in person. My tendency for game violence was also pretty much present within and before my spanked era and never even once stopped. Nothing was better than playing with tanks and soldiers and knights, throwing things around the room to simulate them exploding and whatnot. Physical violence against other people was limited to Kindergarten/early elementary where lunch break basically meant "All boys go out into the sandpit and turn it into a moshpit". We grew out of it fairly quickly. By the time I reached the Gymnasium physical violence was barely a thing. Then again, perhaps the lack of a sandpit and the presence of pure, old concrete ground helped there?

I make my computer and access to the Internet responsible for my poor social development. I was, afterall, still completely fine socially in the time between the end of spanking and when I got my PC.

Has it lowered my IQ or anything? I don't know. I made it into the Gymnasium in 5th grade so if there occured some loss there, it must've been negligible.

I am not sure about spanking in general. Like, I can see that it seems weirdly hypocritical, I can see how it hurts rights and there seem to be an awful lot of studies proving all kinds of bad things about it.

But at the same time I look at my parents, my grandparents and literally most of the everyday people I see and meet and think "So these people are all mentally scarred, handicapped, parent-hating and violent because they grew up in times when spanking was common?" Like...that just doesn't seem right either. Sure, my dad doesn't like grandpa but that's because Grandpa is basically an increasingly senile, working class man who completely neglected his children and not because of any spanking he administered.

So yeah, not sure, don't have an exact position. Just my own personal experiences which are of course personal and cannot really be applied to others.

You probably have a high-to-exceptional IQ without spanking

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

I think you're confusing corporal punishment with capital punishment, UMN.

No. He means corporal punishment should be a pragmatic substitute for imprisonment for dealing with people who make mistakes but 'are not necessarily dangerous to society.' The dangerous criminals are of course, recidivist criminals who cannot be reformed, and he's advocating imprisonment to contain them. I too advocate corporal punishment for minor criminality, especially for youth offenders. It's a better deterrent, and cheaper than imprisonment, which is a doddle really for the prisoner. As for recidivists, I firmly believe death is the right penalty.

Use forced labor instead smh

[Geneviev]

Is the Orwell quote from 1984?

"The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself" is just blatantly untrue. There are lasting effects of corporal punishment.

"The rod and reproof" together, are not the opposite of "left to himself". This is a basic fallacy (fallacy of the missing middle). Other options are just-the-rod (very bad) and just-the-reproof (quite good).

It comes from "Orwell's England". It goes onto say that this treatment was only for the poorer boys. The wealthy boys would be "[goaded] along in a competitive fatherly way, with jokes and digs in the ribs, and perhaps the odd tap with the pencil, but no hair-pulling and no caning. It was the poor 'clever' boys who suffered."

And, as Orwell refers to corporal punishment as suffering, which doesn't sound like a glowing review of its practise, that leaves us with the Bible and the perspective of a man who lived in the 1700s (long before any of the multitude of research condemning corporal punishment came out).

So, in favour, we have the subjective opinion... largely of people long dead. Against, we have modern research which cites it as harmful and counter-productive.

I'm going to have to put my faith in the research.

The research doesn't always acknowledge that people are different. Corporal punishment might be necessary for some children who don't listen otherwise.

[The Free Joy State]

It comes from "Orwell's England". It goes onto say that this treatment was only for the poorer boys. The wealthy boys would be "[goaded] along in a competitive fatherly way, with jokes and digs in the ribs, and perhaps the odd tap with the pencil, but no hair-pulling and no caning. It was the poor 'clever' boys who suffered."

And, as Orwell refers to corporal punishment as suffering, which doesn't sound like a glowing review of its practise, that leaves us with the Bible and the perspective of a man who lived in the 1700s (long before any of the multitude of research condemning corporal punishment came out).

So, in favour, we have the subjective opinion... largely of people long dead. Against, we have modern research which cites it as harmful and counter-productive.

I'm going to have to put my faith in the research.

The research doesn't always acknowledge that people are different. Corporal punishment might be necessary for some children who don't listen otherwise.

Bloody hell... Eighty-eight studies, Geneviev; a meta-analysis showing that the only "good" association with corporal punishment is immediate (and temporary) compliance. The harmful effects -- reduced mental health, an increased likelihood they'll abuse their own spouse or child, more chance they'll commit criminal or anti-social acts, increased aggression and a higher likelihood the parent will abuse the child.

If a child isn't listening, there are other ways to discipline without spanking. Spanking a child does nothing more than harm a child's trust in the people who are meant to care for them and teach them it's okay to hit to get what you want.

When I was a young child, I was a quite cheeky little thing. Sometimes, I was outright naughty. I messed around, I made jokes about my parents (and teachers, and the neighbours, my parents friends...). At school, when I was five/six, my teachers would hit me around the legs (which I later found out was illegal). Did it make me be "good", "obedient"? No, it just made me resent my teachers, and mock them even more behind their backs. Luckily, that shit stopped when the school came under new management.

Incidentally, my parents and their friends generally found my antics amusing and my parents endeavoured not to practise corporal punishment in the home. And how did I grow: into a violent, anti-social criminal as the OP supposes I might have? No, into a productive, functional adult who's cared for unwell loved ones and never had so much as a fine.

The same ending cannot be said to await some of those who are spanked -- as research shows.

[Salandriagado]

You're wrong on two counts;

1. Assault is "Inflicting intentional or reckless harm towards another individual". Corporal punishment is clearly intentional harm inflicted on another individual, so is assault.
2. It doesn't fucking work, and we've known this for fucking decades.

Um, last thread on this subject you brought evidence that it did work, but only in the black community.

On average it doesn't work. That evidence suggests not that it's good, but that some parents are so shitty at being parents that their other attempts are even worse (and at a guess, that correllates strongly with poverty, and hence with race).

[Salandriagado]

Assault does not stop being assault because the person you're assaulting happens to be a child.

Assault is unjustifiable physical harm for a selfish motive, such as revenge or vengeance.

Corporal punishment is justifiable. It's immediate aim is at correcting and deterring misbehaviour by which character is reformed in the long term.

It is a mistake to think such methods do not work. They work very well for their special purpose.

I don't think you understand that quote. In particular, what do you think the "special purpose" referred to is?

I would rather have the rod to be the general terror to all, to make them learn...The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself. A child is afraid of being whipped, and gets his task, and there’s an end on’t;

Why do I care what somebody centuries ago talking out of his arse said?

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Why do I care what somebody millennia ago talking out of his arse wrote?

[Salandriagado]

Sure, reformed with the addition of antisocial traits that is.

That isn't really accurate. A lot of people experienced corporal punishment as children and were very successful later.

That's not the average-case outcome, though. Anecdotes are not data.

[Geneviev]

The research doesn't always acknowledge that people are different. Corporal punishment might be necessary for some children who don't listen otherwise.

Bloody hell... Eighty-eight studies, Geneviev; a meta-analysis showing that the only "good" association with corporal punishment is immediate (and temporary) compliance. The harmful effects -- reduced mental health, an increased likelihood they'll abuse their own spouse or child, more chance they'll commit criminal or anti-social acts, increased aggression and a higher likelihood the parent will abuse the child.

If a child isn't listening, there are other ways to discipline without spanking. Spanking a child does nothing more than harm a child's trust in the people who are meant to care for them and teach them it's okay to hit to get what you want.

When I was a young child, I was a quite cheeky little thing. Sometimes, I was outright naughty. I messed around, I made jokes about my parents (and teachers, and the neighbours, my parents friends...). At school, when I was five/six, my teachers would hit me around the legs (which I later found out was illegal). Did it make me be "good", "obedient"? No, it just made me resent my teachers, and mock them even more behind their backs. Luckily, that shit stopped when the school came under new management.

Incidentally, my parents and their friends generally found my antics amusing and my parents endeavoured not to practise corporal punishment in the home. And how did I grow: into a violent, anti-social criminal as the OP supposes I might have? No, into a productive, functional adult who's cared for unwell loved ones and never had so much as a fine.

The same ending cannot be said to await some of those who are spanked -- as research shows.

It can increase good behavior as well when it's limited (source). If there are no other alternatives, corporal punishment can be necessary, as when children don't change their behavior with other things. My parents were both hit when they were children and are perfectly normal and healthy as well. They're involved in the church and such.

[The Emerald Legion]

I think the research tends to ignore the line between corporal punishment and child abuse, and the context of the relationship.

[New haven america]

I think the research tends to ignore the line between corporal punishment and child abuse, and the context of the relationship.

Well they're basically the same thing in most cases.

[Salandriagado]

Bloody hell... Eighty-eight studies, Geneviev; a meta-analysis showing that the only "good" association with corporal punishment is immediate (and temporary) compliance. The harmful effects -- reduced mental health, an increased likelihood they'll abuse their own spouse or child, more chance they'll commit criminal or anti-social acts, increased aggression and a higher likelihood the parent will abuse the child.

If a child isn't listening, there are other ways to discipline without spanking. Spanking a child does nothing more than harm a child's trust in the people who are meant to care for them and teach them it's okay to hit to get what you want.

When I was a young child, I was a quite cheeky little thing. Sometimes, I was outright naughty. I messed around, I made jokes about my parents (and teachers, and the neighbours, my parents friends...). At school, when I was five/six, my teachers would hit me around the legs (which I later found out was illegal). Did it make me be "good", "obedient"? No, it just made me resent my teachers, and mock them even more behind their backs. Luckily, that shit stopped when the school came under new management.

Incidentally, my parents and their friends generally found my antics amusing and my parents endeavoured not to practise corporal punishment in the home. And how did I grow: into a violent, anti-social criminal as the OP supposes I might have? No, into a productive, functional adult who's cared for unwell loved ones and never had so much as a fine.

The same ending cannot be said to await some of those who are spanked -- as research shows.

It can increase good behavior as well when it's limited (source). If there are no other alternatives, corporal punishment can be necessary, as when children don't change their behavior with other things.

The objective with raising children is to produce better adults, not to make things marginally more convenient for the parents in the short term.

My parents were both hit when they were children and are perfectly normal and healthy as well. They're involved in the church and such.

Anecdotes are still not data.

[Geneviev]

That isn't really accurate. A lot of people experienced corporal punishment as children and were very successful later.

That's not the average-case outcome, though. Anecdotes are not data.

There is a study that does show that as well. It depends on the way that it's done.

[Salandriagado]

I think the research tends to ignore the line between corporal punishment and child abuse, and the context of the relationship.

That's because there isn't one. Assault is assault, no matter what shitty excuses you come up with for it.

[Geneviev]

It can increase good behavior as well when it's limited (source). If there are no other alternatives, corporal punishment can be necessary, as when children don't change their behavior with other things.

The objective with raising children is to produce better adults, not to make things marginally more convenient for the parents in the short term.

My parents were both hit when they were children and are perfectly normal and healthy as well. They're involved in the church and such.

Anecdotes are still not data.

It's intended to make better adults. Kids need to learn to act in a way that is safe and respects others, and parents should encourage that.

[Salandriagado]

That's not the average-case outcome, though. Anecdotes are not data.

There is a study that does show that as well. It depends on the way that it's done.

Cite it then.

[Geneviev]

There is a study that does show that as well. It depends on the way that it's done.

Cite it then.

I already linked it.

[The Free Joy State]

Bloody hell... Eighty-eight studies, Geneviev; a meta-analysis showing that the only "good" association with corporal punishment is immediate (and temporary) compliance. The harmful effects -- reduced mental health, an increased likelihood they'll abuse their own spouse or child, more chance they'll commit criminal or anti-social acts, increased aggression and a higher likelihood the parent will abuse the child.

If a child isn't listening, there are other ways to discipline without spanking. Spanking a child does nothing more than harm a child's trust in the people who are meant to care for them and teach them it's okay to hit to get what you want.

When I was a young child, I was a quite cheeky little thing. Sometimes, I was outright naughty. I messed around, I made jokes about my parents (and teachers, and the neighbours, my parents friends...). At school, when I was five/six, my teachers would hit me around the legs (which I later found out was illegal). Did it make me be "good", "obedient"? No, it just made me resent my teachers, and mock them even more behind their backs. Luckily, that shit stopped when the school came under new management.

Incidentally, my parents and their friends generally found my antics amusing and my parents endeavoured not to practise corporal punishment in the home. And how did I grow: into a violent, anti-social criminal as the OP supposes I might have? No, into a productive, functional adult who's cared for unwell loved ones and never had so much as a fine.

The same ending cannot be said to await some of those who are spanked -- as research shows.

It can increase good behavior as well when it's limited (source)

It's based on one self-report study at a Christian university, rather than 88 objective studies.

Pass.

If there are no other alternatives, corporal punishment can be necessary, as when children don't change their behavior with other things.

There are always other alternatives.

We are not talking about lightly tapping an infant's hand away from a hot stove -- in the heat of the moment -- for their protection, we are talking about deliberately hitting a comprehending child because they are doing something that is annoying to the parent.

Parents have other options, they just choose not to use them.

My parents were both hit when they were children and are perfectly normal and healthy as well. They're involved in the church and such.

Subjective report is not research.

All the pro-spanking side has is subjective opinion. Even the "research" is based on subjective report.

[Salandriagado]

Cite it then.

I already linked it.

Shitty methodology, uses self-reported achievement from teenagers as its success metric, blatant (and openly admitted) bias, not peer reviewed? Oh look, it's utter bullshit. What a surprise.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

limited

What even is "limited assault"? Just a thwack on the head and not two dozen?

[Thermodolia]

I think you're confusing corporal punishment with capital punishment, UMN.

No. He means corporal punishment should be a pragmatic substitute for imprisonment for dealing with people who make mistakes but 'are not necessarily dangerous to society.' The dangerous criminals are of course, recidivist criminals who cannot be reformed, and he's advocating imprisonment to contain them. I too advocate corporal punishment for minor criminality, especially for youth offenders. It's a better deterrent, and cheaper than imprisonment, which is a doddle really for the prisoner. As for recidivists, I firmly believe death is the right penalty.

Ya fuck that nonsense

[The Free Joy State]

I already linked it.

Shitty methodology, uses self-reported achievement from teenagers as its success metric, blatant (and openly admitted) bias, not peer reviewed? Oh look, it's utter bullshit. What a surprise.

I missed that it was currently unpublished... ahem... "research". I just spotted that it relied on subjective self-report.

Good spot.

[New haven america]

Cite it then.

I already linked it.

Your source is shitty.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Calvin College, a Christian school

And I stopped reading there.
Oh and lead researcher has been fishing for evidence to strut up her ailing hypothesis since at least the 90's.

[Geneviev]

It can increase good behavior as well when it's limited (source)

It's based on one self-report study at a Christian university, rather than 88 objective studies.

Pass.

If there are no other alternatives, corporal punishment can be necessary, as when children don't change their behavior with other things.

There are always other alternatives.

We are not talking about lightly tapping an infant's hand away from a hot stove -- in the heat of the moment -- for their protection, we are talking about deliberately hitting a comprehending child because they are doing something that is annoying to the parent.

Parents have other options, they just choose not to use them.

My parents were both hit when they were children and are perfectly normal and healthy as well. They're involved in the church and such.

Subjective report is not research.

All the pro-spanking side has is subjective opinion. Even the "research" is based on subjective report.

Sometimes the other options do nothing. Some children are more rebellious and won't listen to their parents when it's good for them, and in those cases corporal punishment can be the only option.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Lolz at the idea that "assaulting your children" doesn't introduce antisocial traits.