Corporal Punishment

[CoraSpia]

Assault is wrong and should not be legal. I don't distinguish between different forms of assault depending on who the perpetrator and victim are.

[Page]

Assault is wrong and should not be legal. I don't distinguish between different forms of assault depending on who the perpetrator and victim are.

It's so perplexing to me that society not only has a double standard when it comes to violence but that the kind of violence people think acceptable is directed against the most vulnerable and helpless.

If I hit a 6 foot 8 350 pound Hell's Angel who can snap my neck without even trying, that's a crime, but if I hit a kid who is completely incapable of hitting me back and can't even run away from me because they depend on me for survival, that's fine? Insane.

[Royal Frankia]

The fuck does requisitioning resources from society by force mean?

it's when commie countries like norway and the entirety of europe steal your toothbrush in order to prevent crime instead of just hitting kids like a normal and well-adjusted person would.

Norway has oil, El Salvador doesn't. Also Norway is within NATO and subsidized by American defense spending.

You ignore the fact that resources are taken from society and that salaries must be paid for the extra cost later on for the failure to 1)to properly correct improper behavior and 2) increased levels of dissent within society. Resources directed towards the prison system means that there are less resources and manpower for other uses. As such, an increase in such a social cost is truly a negative.

You have an issue with the implementation of violence, but not so in the form of taxation or rent. I'm not adopting a moral position, I'm just stating a fact.

[Ifreann]

it's when commie countries like norway and the entirety of europe steal your toothbrush in order to prevent crime instead of just hitting kids like a normal and well-adjusted person would.

Norway has oil, El Salvador doesn't. Also Norway is within NATO and subsidized by American defense spending.

You ignore the fact that resources are taken from society and that salaries must be paid for the extra cost later on for the failure to 1)to properly correct improper behavior and 2) increased levels of dissent within society. Resources directed towards the prison system means that there are less resources and manpower for other uses. As such, an increase in such a social cost is truly a negative.

You have an issue with the implementation of violence, but not so in the form of taxation or rent. I'm not adopting a moral position, I'm just stating a fact.

Worth keeping in mind that the social cost of not using corporal punishment is just something that you have made up.

[Kilobugya]

Worth keeping in mind that the social cost of not using corporal punishment is just something that you have made up.

Indeed, all evidence actually points in the opposite direction.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

it's when commie countries like norway and the entirety of europe steal your toothbrush in order to prevent crime instead of just hitting kids like a normal and well-adjusted person would.

Norway has oil, El Salvador doesn't. Also Norway is within NATO and subsidized by American defense spending.

You ignore the fact that resources are taken from society and that salaries must be paid for the extra cost later on for the failure to 1)to properly correct improper behavior and 2) increased levels of dissent within society. Resources directed towards the prison system means that there are less resources and manpower for other uses. As such, an increase in such a social cost is truly a negative.

You have an issue with the implementation of violence, but not so in the form of taxation or rent. I'm not adopting a moral position, I'm just stating a fact.

... which seems to have nothing at all to do with corporal punishment of children. Was there some Norwegian example?

Seems most of South America have banned it. Europe, except Italy and England. Japan.

[Daarwyrth]

it's when commie countries like norway and the entirety of europe steal your toothbrush in order to prevent crime instead of just hitting kids like a normal and well-adjusted person would.

Norway has oil, El Salvador doesn't. Also Norway is within NATO and subsidized by American defense spending.

You ignore the fact that resources are taken from society and that salaries must be paid for the extra cost later on for the failure to 1)to properly correct improper behavior and 2) increased levels of dissent within society. Resources directed towards the prison system means that there are less resources and manpower for other uses. As such, an increase in such a social cost is truly a negative.

You have an issue with the implementation of violence, but not so in the form of taxation or rent. I'm not adopting a moral position, I'm just stating a fact.

Fun fact: a lot of those who end up in prison or other correctional or re-educational facilities have had a history of corporal punishment and/or abuse by their parents or other authoritative figures during childhood:

"Results showed that childhood abuse increased the risk of adulthood crime by promoting antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence, followed by the formation of relationships with antisocial romantic partners and peers in adulthood."

Your argument doesn't have a single foot to stand on.

[Royal Frankia]

Norway has oil, El Salvador doesn't. Also Norway is within NATO and subsidized by American defense spending.

You ignore the fact that resources are taken from society and that salaries must be paid for the extra cost later on for the failure to 1)to properly correct improper behavior and 2) increased levels of dissent within society. Resources directed towards the prison system means that there are less resources and manpower for other uses. As such, an increase in such a social cost is truly a negative.

You have an issue with the implementation of violence, but not so in the form of taxation or rent. I'm not adopting a moral position, I'm just stating a fact.

Fun fact: a lot of those who end up in prison or other correctional or re-educational facilities have had a history of corporal punishment and/or abuse by their parents or other authoritative figures during childhood:

"Results showed that childhood abuse increased the risk of adulthood crime by promoting antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence, followed by the formation of relationships with antisocial romantic partners and peers in adulthood."

Your argument doesn't have a single foot to stand on.

You are cherrypicking instead of taking the whole into consideration. How many were deterred from their behavior with the knowledge that there was punishment? What is the percentage? What are the social costs for the increased number of prisons, police, ect.

Blaming say punishment for those who might have committed adult crimes for other reasons, say poverty, is shifting blame.

You ignore the fact that Norway is subsidized by US defense spending, which in turn leads to the use of its resources for social welfare programs.

If a student assaults a teacher is it abuse in your eyes? You must remember that failing to stop negative behavior early on can lead to negative consequences for others within society.

https://www.weareteachers.com/student-violence/

[The New California Republic]

You are cherrypicking instead of taking the whole into consideration. How many were deterred from their behavior with the knowledge that there was punishment? What is the percentage? What are the social costs for the increased number of prisons, police, ect.

If you think that hitting children makes them less likely to get into mischief, think again:

Smacking children makes them ‘more aggressive and antisocial’, say scientists.

Corporal punishment 'doesn't work' and is linked with behavioural problems such as fighting and disrupting classes.

Smacking makes children’s behaviour “worse not better”, according to a new study.

US researchers found that the practice makes youngsters "more aggressive".

The study, which follows less than a month after Scotland joined the list of countries to ban smacking children altogether, adds to a growing case against the use of corporal punishment.

Dr Elizabeth Gershoff of the University of Texas at Austin, who led the study, has conducted extensive research into the use of smacking on children and has concluded that it is “making them more aggressive and more antisocial”.

Past studies have also linked corporal punishment in children to the onset of depression, anxiety and drugs and alcohol abuse.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 61471.html

[Kilobugya]

You are cherrypicking instead of taking the whole into consideration. How many were deterred from their behavior with the knowledge that there was punishment? What is the percentage? What are the social costs for the increased number of prisons, police, ect.

Not cherrypicking and taking the whole into consideration is actually the whole point of relying on science rather than on anecdot, which is what you are refusing to do, because the evidence collected by science points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.

Blaming say punishment for those who might have committed adult crimes for other reasons, say poverty, is shifting blame.

No. It's well documented that corporal punishments make children more likely to commit crimes as adults, and many of the mechanics are known. Because it teaches them that violence is an acceptable answer to common problems. Because it doesn't teach why they should behave, but only that they shouldn't be caught. And because it has several, well-documented, negative consequences on the way their brain is able to construct itself, leading to lower ability to control temper, and lower ability to think about long-term consequences. There is also evidence it leads to lower IQ (even if IQ is quite a broken thing in itself).

You didn't provide any single bit of reliable evidence pointing towards the fact that hitting children lowers the societal cost of law enforcement. You didn't provide any answer to all the mechanism we explained into why the opposite is true, nor against the overwhelming scientific evidence towards it except that you don't trust science and that Norway has oil.

You just asserted the unfounded hypothesis that hitting children prevent crime, and without providing evidence towards it, concluded that hitting children is all fine. When justifying something as horrific as voluntarily inflicting pain to a child, you need at least a very strong level evidence and a very strong effect. And even then you would have the moral low ground, justifying a necessary evil because we didn't (yet) find a way to do better and the alternative is even worse, so you should be welcoming any alternative.

It's like a doctor proposing an amputation to stop the risk of gangrene spreading, he would need very strong evidence that the amputation actually works (in that case, it does, at least in some cases - in yours it doesn't) and he would be relieved to find any alternative to amputation that also works, something which you stubbornly refuse.

[Kilobugya]

If a student assaults a teacher is it abuse in your eyes? You must remember that failing to stop negative behavior early on can lead to negative consequences for others within society.

It's not abuse, it's assault. A different wrong.

But anyway, you still utterly fail to justify that :
1. Not hitting children leads to more risk of them committing assault later on.
2. That the risk of committing assault is actually worse than the harm done by hitting the child.
3. That no alternative to hitting the child exists to prevent said harm.

Unless you are able to justify all those three, with strong, scientific-level evidence, your point is utterly broken. And when all the evidence points towards the opposite direction, and yet you continue advocating for hitting children, you're not in the delicate but understandable situation of a doctor advising an amputation to save a life, until they find a better way of treating the disease. You're in the position of medieval "doctors" forcing bloodletting on patients even if it actually increases their risk of death.

[Zul-ar]

Fun fact: a lot of those who end up in prison or other correctional or re-educational facilities have had a history of corporal punishment and/or abuse by their parents or other authoritative figures during childhood:

"Results showed that childhood abuse increased the risk of adulthood crime by promoting antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence, followed by the formation of relationships with antisocial romantic partners and peers in adulthood."

Your argument doesn't have a single foot to stand on.

Adding this to OP.

[Daarwyrth]

Fun fact: a lot of those who end up in prison or other correctional or re-educational facilities have had a history of corporal punishment and/or abuse by their parents or other authoritative figures during childhood:

"Results showed that childhood abuse increased the risk of adulthood crime by promoting antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence, followed by the formation of relationships with antisocial romantic partners and peers in adulthood."

Your argument doesn't have a single foot to stand on.

You are cherrypicking instead of taking the whole into consideration. How many were deterred from their behavior with the knowledge that there was punishment? What is the percentage? What are the social costs for the increased number of prisons, police, ect.

Blaming say punishment for those who might have committed adult crimes for other reasons, say poverty, is shifting blame.

You ignore the fact that Norway is subsidized by US defense spending, which in turn leads to the use of its resources for social welfare programs.

If a student assaults a teacher is it abuse in your eyes? You must remember that failing to stop negative behavior early on can lead to negative consequences for others within society.

https://www.weareteachers.com/student-violence/

No. You argument still has not footing to stand on. You're defending a morally reprehensible stance and have stomped your own credibility deeply into the ground.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

it's when commie countries like norway and the entirety of europe steal your toothbrush in order to prevent crime instead of just hitting kids like a normal and well-adjusted person would.

Norway has oil, El Salvador doesn't. Also Norway is within NATO and subsidized by American defense spending.

You ignore the fact that resources are taken from society and that salaries must be paid for the extra cost later on for the failure to 1)to properly correct improper behavior and 2) increased levels of dissent within society. Resources directed towards the prison system means that there are less resources and manpower for other uses. As such, an increase in such a social cost is truly a negative.

You have an issue with the implementation of violence, but not so in the form of taxation or rent. I'm not adopting a moral position, I'm just stating a fact.

i dunno what oil has to do with all of this but it should be pretty clear that i was not being sincere about the entirety of europe being communist

additionally, i was talking about social programs that reduce crime, not prison funding. it's perfectly reasonable to take resources from society in order to improve it.

yes, i do have an issue with violence. no, taxation/rent are not inherently violent. thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

It's ridiculous that a country where even children are mistreated is trying to teach the world a lesson in democracy. let's talk about crimes against humanity in Guantanamo Camp.

[Zul-ar]

Let's not because it's off topic

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

It's ridiculous that a country where even children are mistreated is trying to teach the world a lesson in democracy. let's talk about crimes against humanity in Guantanamo Camp.

it's not just america...

[Kilobugya]

It's ridiculous that a country where even children are mistreated is trying to teach the world a lesson in democracy. let's talk about crimes against humanity in Guantanamo Camp.

it's not just america...

Well, at least in many places (like in most of Europe) it's illegal to hit a child. It's very hard to enforce such a law inside houses, but at least it's not done in public or in schools, and the fact that it's illegal and frown upon makes it slowly go away. But sure, there are still lots of places where it's legal out of USA, and many parents who do it even where it's illegal.

[Intaglio]

I've lived through parents not being able to fully discipline a child and seen the consequences. I've dealt with social workers who've tried to plan the lives of everyone else while ignoring an abusive child that can legit throw their parents up against the wall or break their wrists.

I would say the scientific community might be wrong on this as it was wrong on gender or eugenics. Also, there is the lack of observing societies in which said discipline takes place or how much was say prevented

Slapping your child's hand to stop them from touching a redhot burner isn't abuse, it's neglect by the parent if they allow their child to burn the everliving crap out of their hand.

I just want to clarify something; do you think that they only way to discipline a child is to use corporal punishment? Because all of your posts so far seem to be of the logic "discipline=corporal punishment, anything else=not disciplined". Not to mention, you're saying here that the whole scientific community must be wrong because of your anecdotal evidence but you haven't provided evidence to the contrary. Also, the last sentence is just ridiculous; you seem to think the only options are slap a kid or let them get burned, rather than just pulling them away from the stove.

[Esalia]

Correction is required for the youth, particularly if they get into the habit of disrespecting their elders/authorities. A paddling at age 9 is preferable and cheaper than say the cost of housing that 18 year old in prison.

This (and really your entire argument) rests on two assumptions:

One, that it is impossible to correct a child without physical harm, and two that there is a direct correlation between not receiving corporal punishment and crime. Otherwise there isn't much of a reason for needing corporal punishment in particular.

If you have any sources backing up either of those assumptions, I'd love to see them, because from the way I'm looking at them, that doesn't really seem to be the case, considering the absence of news stories of various countries that have outlawed corporal punishment being crippled by a gigantic wave of crime that must have occurred if corporal punishment is really so special and so much better at preventing crime than other forms of disciplining children.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

We're never going to break the cycle until people learn to stop denying the impact abuse had on them because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance of wanting to love their parents but also acknowledging that their parents inflicted trauma on them.

The thing I've learned is that the only thing relevant when it comes to abuse is how it affected the victim. It doesn't matter what the intentions of the person who inflicted the abuse were, it doesn't matter what caused them to be abusive in the first place whether it was culture or insecurity or anything else. Be honest with yourself about how you were affected, and be honest with yourself about how you feel about it.

Even in this thread there are people who think they deserved to be hit as kids but what were you doing when your parents hit you? Were you trying to set the house on fire? Were you stabbing your little brother? Probably not. What did you do that was so bad? Say the word "fuck"? Steal a cookie? Do you really think that deserved violence?

Break the cycle, people. Say "I was abused." It doesn't mean you can't still love your parents, it doesn't mean you can't forgive them or even that they're bad people. No one suffers because of bad intentions, we suffer because of bad actions.

This exactly. I acknowledge that what my parents did to me was wrong. I forgive them and I still love them all the same.

Assault is wrong and should not be legal. I don't distinguish between different forms of assault depending on who the perpetrator and victim are.

It's so perplexing to me that society not only has a double standard when it comes to violence but that the kind of violence people think acceptable is directed against the most vulnerable and helpless.

If I hit a 6 foot 8 350 pound Hell's Angel who can snap my neck without even trying, that's a crime, but if I hit a kid who is completely incapable of hitting me back and can't even run away from me because they depend on me for survival, that's fine? Insane.

If anything, I would say that heavyweight pro wrestlers who break the law who are more deserving of violent retribution AKA "discipline" than small, defenseless children. Not that I actually condone such violence, but you get the idea.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Malaysia's love for the cane is questioned

Article from 2014.

Corporal punishment is legal in Malaysia. It is illegal in Scandinavia. My country remains trapped in the Dark Ages. It is sad to see that most Malaysians are still prepared to defend the indefensible. How we treat not only our children, but also gays and lesbians, is absolutely vile and it would've been nice if the British had stuck around for far longer than they did to ensure that we abandon such medieval savagery.

The Swedish case, meanwhile, has given rise to articles suggesting that the Swedish ban on corporal punishment has spawned a nation of "brats".

"Our children cannot totally emulate the West," wrote columnist Chok Suat Ling. "Asian rules of decorum must never be disregarded.

You mean the "decorum" where Malaysians keep their heads down and suffer in silence while their corrupt government abuses them on a daily basis?

The "decorum" that insists that as citizens of an oppressively conservative Muslim country, we refrain from rocking the boat instead of getting angry, peacefully taking to the streets by the thousands, being outspoken, being rude, uttering four-letter words, criticizing, mocking, and outright insulting politicians, religion, and royalty alike, and demanding justice and accountability?

The "decorum" that insists that we don't question authority ever?

"Decorum" whereby gays and lesbians, who, more often than not, are adults, are caned for the "crime" of being gay?

That "decorum"? Because this is exactly why Malaysians and Malaysian kids ought to emulate the West at all costs, because Western culture is vastly superior and more advanced than Malaysian culture and the British need to come back and properly civilize us.

For the record, Scandinavian kids are far more well-behaved and well-adjusted than either American or Malaysian kids.

Reports that Azizul and Shalwati had smacked at least one of their four children for not performing prayer, resonated with some in Malaysia's majority Muslim community.

"We have to hit our children if they do not pray," said one mother-of-two, Siti Hajjah.

Spanking your kid because they don't appreciate you forcing your religion onto them? No compulsion in religion indeed.

The children were brought home to Malaysia, after reports that non-Muslim carers fed them non-halal food

This is what Malaysians consider so unbelievably outrageous. No, not the spanking. Not the beatings. But the fact that Muslim children were given non-halal food. That's the real crime against humanity.

[The Remote Islands]

If you must insist on some form of corporal punishment, we should do that thing where martial artists hit blocks of titanium to create micro-fractures in their hands that heal and make them super strong, but for our children. Sure, they'll suffer terribly and he horribly mentally scarred, but we'll produce a nation of Herculean superhumans!