Originally posted by stellspalfieYou know, when I think about it, I think corporal punishment should be the same whether you are a corporal or a sergeant.
capital punishment seems to have divided the atheist and christians on here. im wondering where everybody falls when it comes to corporal punishment. im guessing the battle lines will be slightly more mixed.
im specifically thinking about corporal punishment and children, should it be allowed at home and to what extent, what about schools, should the police be able to rough up anti-social kids in the street?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, here was your position as you articulated it (page 2):
[b]I don't think I need you to explain your position. Your position seems clear enough: you are blanketly against all conceivable instances of child-striking.
Given the content of my last post (my last few posts for that matter), do you honestly believe that this is what I meant by "my position"? Does it even make the least bit sense that that's y posts, I can't say I like the chances of you ever understanding where I'm coming from.[/b]
"There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period."
So, like I said, you are against all conceivable instances of child-striking. Seems clear enough.
As to my objective inquiry into whether or not your pastings actually support such a position, you have apparently resolved to be systematically unhelpful since you refuse to even answer the simplest of questions regarding your reference. I'll have to attend to this myself.
So, here goes:
The page to which you linked, as far as I can tell, provides no definition of CP. So, I did some further research and I found an excerpt from a work entitled Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, edited by Michael Donnelly & Murray A. Straus (Yale University Press, 2005). Here is the opening line of that work:
"Corporal punishment, as we use the term in this book, is: the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correcting or controlling the child's behavior."
Now, I think it is very justified to say that if this is how Straus uses the term in this book, it is also pretty much how he uses the term in your reference you linked too. So, just like I thought, the term CP as Straus uses it definitionally involves the intention to bring about pain. So, this should clear up your prior misconceptions about how Straus intends those terms like 'violence' and 'spanking', when he is using them in his writing as proxy for, or paradigmatic of, CP. Remember how I said it would illuminate the author's intention of those terms if we knew how he defined CP?
Now, as to question of whether or not your pasting supplies argumentative fuel against a position like bbarr's description of justifiable child-swatting, I mentioned before that the answer should be clear once we know how Straus is defining CP. And the answer does seem very clear now, and the answer is no. Bbarr's description of justifiable child-swatting, as clearly outlined by him, involves no intention to cause pain (rather, the intention is latched on to other things, such as attention-getting and the demonstration of parental/situational seriousness) and involves no pain to the child (that is actually an explicit necessary condition that he mentioned for the justifiability of the swatting). So, what bbarr calls justifiable child-swatting obviously doesn't qualify as an instance of CP by Straus's own definition, and hence Straus's work you quoted doesn't address such things.
Now, as to the question of whether or not your pasting supports your blanket position against all conceivable instances of child-striking as you succinctly stated it, the answer is also no. This pretty much follows immediately from the above result, since an instance of justifiable child-swatting also constitutes a conceivable instance of child-striking. This is not to say that the Straus work could not, in part, help to support such a position. But since the Straus work does not address some conceivable instances of child-striking, obviously you would need to augment with other references or considerations that help to collectively address all conceivable instances of child-striking. Presumably, you would need some additional works that actually address, for example, what bbarr brought up.
Well, that was easy enough, even with your willful unhelpfulness.
Originally posted by LemonJelloBuilding on this, and having read quite a bit of Straus' work now, he acknowledges that the likelihood, and extent, of the detrimental consequences of CP, is related to a whole host of factors including:
Well, here was your position as you articulated it (page 2):
"There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period."
So, like I said, you are against all conceivable instances of child-striking. Seems clear enough.
As to my objective inquiry into whether or not your pastings actually support such a position, you have apparently rought up.
Well, that was easy enough, even with your willful unhelpfulness.
1) The frequency of the corporal punishment
2) The severity of the corporal punishment
3) Whether parents use this as their main or sole form of discipline
4) Whether it is set in the context of explanations, warnings which are consistently and fairly applied etc
Straus acknowledges that 'moderate CP' , which he refers to as 'occasional hitting', gives rise to only a 'slightly higher probability' of detrimental consequences.
But as LJ says, here we are not even talking about CP as defined by Straus. We are talking about something off the bottom end (no pun intended) of his definition of CP, applied infrequently and by parents who will use other forms of discipline when they will work and will explain to the child why they have acted the way they have.
Looking at all the evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this form of physical intervention has no detrimental effects in either the short, medium or long term.
So, whilst it is still reasonable to conclude that your personal preference might be to avoid this form of physical intervention, it is wholly unreasonable to claim that this is 'sickening' behaviour on the part of parents who occasionally use it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is an internet forum where I have no admin privileges so there is literately no way
[b]So again, get off your high horse, and actually explain what you mean rather than insulting us
and whining.
Seems like you're much more interested in defending your "honor" than allowing me to "explain what [I] mean".[/b]
for me to prevent you from 'explaining' anything you like.
You can't put the blame on us for the fact that you have not yet explained yourself adequately
because you can just do it. We can't stop you even if we wanted to.
So this post of yours is total bull excrement.
You are simply deflecting, which makes you look remarkably like you can't adequately explain your
position.
If this is not the case then stop thrashing around and just do it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDidn't the 'injection of "historical perspective"' clear things up for you?
This is an internet forum where I have no admin privileges so there is literately no way
for me to prevent you from 'explaining' anything you like.
You can't put the blame on us for the fact that you have not yet explained yourself adequately
because you can just do it. We can't stop you even if we wanted to.
So this post of yours is total bull ...[text shortened]... lain your
position.
If this is not the case then stop thrashing around and just do it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf that was his argument then it was a really bad one.
Didn't the 'injection of "historical perspective"' clear things up for you?
Kind of like a reverse 'slippery slope' fallacy.
However as a response to his claim that I/we were somehow stopping him explaining himself, my post stands.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, it seems you lack the patience to consider what I've been trying to get across to you.
Well, here was your position as you articulated it (page 2):
"There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period."
So, like I said, you are against all conceivable instances of child-striking. Seems clear enough.
As to my objective inquiry into whether or not your pastings actually support such a position, you have apparently ...[text shortened]... rought up.
Well, that was easy enough, even with your willful unhelpfulness.
If nothing else, you certainly are single-minded and focused. That's a reasonable approach for simple problem domains. For problem domains of any complexity, it leads to myopic assessments which is a problem. For complex problem domains, a different approach is required as is the experience to know when it is needed. Based on what I've seen here, it doesn't seem that you've done that, but I could be wrong. So, let me ask you a couple of questions:
In what way(s) did pain tolerance factor into your assessment?
In what way(s) did the perception of pain factor into your assessment?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe answer to these two questions is simple. Not at all.
In what way(s) did pain tolerance factor into your assessment?
In what way(s) did the perception of pain factor into your assessment?
LJ was simply pointing out that the evidence you posted was not relevant to the question which was being debated at the time. He wasn't making, or attempting to make, an assessment of anything other than the value of your 'evidence', which you posted as if it were conclusive and would change our minds.
So, now answer my question:
Do you have any evidence that the mild form of physical intervention that was being discussed at the time has any short, medium or long-term detrimental effects?
p.s. you can try and dress up your comments in fancy language, but it doesn't make up for the complete absence of any coherence in what you say, and the way you keep deflecting people's questions.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI lack the patience to deal with someone who introduces a reference that has the term 'corporal punishment' in the title and that clearly deals centrally with that term throughout, and yet systematically obscures clarification of how that term is even defined in the reference when others ask for it.
Well, it seems you lack the patience to consider what I've been trying to get across to you.
If nothing else, you certainly are single-minded and focused. That's a reasonable approach for simple problem domains. For problem domains of any complexity, it leads to myopic assessments which is a problem. For complex problem domains, a different approach i ...[text shortened]... your assessment?
In what way(s) did the perception of pain factor into your assessment?
To your questions, those didn't factor. As I made explicitly clear, my assessment was aimed at answering the following two questions:
(A) Does what you pasted supply argument against what bbarr was outlining as justifiable child-swatting?
(B) Does what you pasted support a blanket stance against all conceivable instances of child-striking?
My assessment concerns only the following claims and conclusions:
(A.1) The section you pasted purports to address only instances of CP as defined by its author, Straus.
(A.2) Straus defines CP in such a way that explicitly involves the intention to bring about pain.
(A.3) Instances of justifiable child-swatting, as outlined by bbarr, do not involve the intention to bring about pain.
(A.4) Hence, instances of justifiable child-swatting, as outlined by bbarr, do not qualify as instances of CP as defined by Straus.
(A.5) Hence, what you pasted does not purport to address instances of justifiable child-swatting, as outlined by bbarr.
(A.C) Hence, the answer to question (A) is no.
(B.1) From (A.C), what you pasted does not purport to address instances of justifiable child-swatting, as outlined by bbarr.
(B.2) Instances of justifiable child-swatting, as outlined by bbarr, constitute conceivable instances of child-striking.
(B.3) Hence, what you pasted does not purport to address all conceivable instances of child-striking.
(B.C) Hence, the answer to question (B) is no.
Do you disagree with any of these? If so, state which one(s), and why.
Like I said, the fact that the Straus work you cited does not itself support a blanket stance against all conceivable instances of child-striking doesn't mean that it could not in part help to support such a stance. But you will need other considerations and references that cover the balance of conceivable instances of child-striking, and this is something you have heretofore not provided. Perhaps this is where considerations of pain tolerance and perception of pain could factor. For instance, regarding what bbarr described as justifiable child-swatting, a necessary condition is that it cause no pain to the child. But if you have reasons to think that even a caring parent cannot reliably meet this condition in his or her execution of mild, infrequent swatting, then you would want to raise those concerns. I'm not yet convinced you actually have any, though.
Originally posted by LemonJelloDamn. Preach it!
I lack the patience to deal with someone who introduces a reference that has the term 'corporal punishment' in the title and that clearly deals centrally with that term throughout, and yet systematically obscures clarification of how that term is even defined in the reference when others ask for it.
To your questions, those didn't factor. As I made ex ...[text shortened]... u would want to raise those concerns. I'm not yet convinced you actually have any, though.
While I wait for ThinkOfOne (TOO) to come back to me on my question, I thought it might be useful to summarise for him what the issue at debate is and why we won’t accept his position as yet.
First we have TOO’s original contention that any form of striking of a child is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Absolutes are often easier to deal with than other contentions, as any party that disagrees need only demonstrate that there is a single example where it would be acceptable and that defeats the contention, which then needs to be modified (e.g. “Except in exceptional circumstances, I think it would be preferable not to strike a child&rdquo😉.
However, given the fact that TOO chose to present an absolute position, and then bandy around terms such as “lazy, ignorant, wrongheaded, sickening” and “barbaric” to describe either the act of striking a child or the parents that do so, the onus on him to demonstrate that his position is valid.
At this point I would normally pause to see if there are any terms in TOO’s contention that are capable of misinterpretation and need clarification. I can’t see any that are, as his position is absolute and the words clear.
The counter-contention is that a certain type of striking, which has been referred to a ‘child swatting’, is acceptable under some circumstances.
Here we do need to pause to consider both what type of striking is being referred to as ‘child swatting’ and also the particular circumstances under which it is acceptable.
Having re-read the original posts, I would say that the term ‘child swatting’ should be defined as the act of striking a child which:
• is performed with an open hand (i.e. is not a punch and does not involve the use of an implement)
• is not intended to, and does not, cause pain
• is of short duration
The circumstances under which such ‘child swatting’ is acceptable are when it is:
• in response to an immediate need to cause an instant change in the child’s behaviour
• not as a punishment for bad behaviour
• when other methods of discipline have proven ineffective, are not available or will not work for other reasons
• is applied infrequently
Having defined the terms of the original contention and counter-contention, I would say that, for TOO to prove his contention is valid, he would need to show that:
• there are detrimental effects in child swatting in the circumstances described above. If there are absolutely no detrimental consequences at all, then the issue becomes one of personal preference as far as I am concerned
• even if there are detrimental effects, he would then have to show that there were no positive effects of child swatting that outweigh the detrimental effects of child swatting. This will be harder than it sounds, as I can consider of circumstances where the benefit of child swatting could be saving the child’s life. As this is the issue that most parents would consider the ultimate benefit, there are no detrimental consequences that will outweigh this. If TOO argues that the putative situations where this would arise are extremely rare, this does not matter as his position is absolute and therefore his contention is defeated.
• this leaves TOO with one final possibility that I can think of which is that child-swatting is unnecessary as other forms of discipline are equally effective. In other words, the benefits of child swatting do indeed outweigh the detrimental effects in some circumstances, but other forms of discipline would achieve the same result and should therefore be preferred as they avoid even the possibility of these detrimental consequences.
On this last point I would make a number of comments:
• if there are detrimental effects, the studies I have seen have simply said that all the other ‘preferred’ forms of discipline (such as those mentioned in the quote TOO provided) have about the same success rate on average. They do not say that they all have the same success rate for each child and in every circumstance. This is easy to understand as, for example, the idea of denying privileges, or putting a child in ‘time out’ may simply not be available to make the immediate correction to behaviour that is required.
• the references to recidivism rate in the article quoted by TOO are irrelevant, as the counter-contention is not suggesting that child swatting be used to make a permanent change to a child’s behaviour, but instead to make an instant change in response to an immediate problem.
• the counter-contention has already stated as part of its premise that child swatting should only be used when other forms of discipline have proven ineffective, are unavailable or will not work for some other reason.
I am sure there is more to it than this, but this should be enough for TOO to be getting on with for now.
I have not been following the debate since it went along the path of personal
attacks and "arguing about arguing". I would just like to say that ThinkOfOne
is not alone. I cannot conceive of a situation where striking a child is justified
and do not understand the "hitting without hurting" argument.
A story:
My foster son came to us just over a year ago. He was from a large family
where CP was the norm - nothing overly violent, just a "tap on the leg from
dad" is how he puts it. Unfortunately when dad left he took over that role and
gave his siblings a "tap" when mum told them off. Soon he was giving mum
a "tap" too. This was all learnt behaviour. Finally the family were taken into
care.
For the first two months with us, mainly at weekends, we would have
inevitable arguments about house rules. He would hit me. Normally a few
body punches. I never hit back and even gave up blocking his blows as that
seemed to fuel his anger.
He quickly came to realise that
1. Violence was not the way to achieve what he wanted.
and
2. Violence was not how I achieved what I wanted.
We are now a happy family.
I realise anecdotal evidence means little but I have worked with a number of
children in care, taught at a special needs school (behavioural/emotional
difficulties ie bad-lads) and had my own children and foster children. All my
experience tells me that hitting a child is wrong (and if not wrong at the very least is counter-productive).
I'm not saying that those who "swat" their kids are bad people - just asking
that you have a little re-think.
Thank you.
Originally posted by wolfgang59If you'd like help conceiving of a situation where swatting a child's butt to gain his/her attention is justified, then maybe you should go back and actually pay attention to the thread.
I have not been following the debate since it went along the path of personal
attacks and "arguing about arguing". I would just like to say that ThinkOfOne
is not alone. I cannot conceive of a situation where striking a child is justified
and do not understand the "hitting without hurting" argument.
A story:
My foster son came to us just over a ye r kids are bad people - just asking
that you have a little re-think.
Thank you.
Again, conceiving of it as violent is question-begging. Swats of the sort my grandmother gave me never hurt, they succeeded in making me pay attention in cases where I was not listening and was engaged in risky behavior. They were never meant to rectify my behavior on their own; rather, they were meant to get me to immediately stop what I was doing, so that she could then tell me (in no uncertain terms) what I was doing wrong, what I should be doing, and what the consequences would be if I didn't obey. Of course, if I had been previously abused and had severe, negative associations with any swatting, then it would probably have been counterproductive for her to swat. But I wasn't, and it wasn't.
And, for the record, I'm not saying that those parents who don't swat their kids in order to prevent them from being more seriously harmed are self-absorbed, unbearably self-righteous and indulgent; I'm just saying that maybe they should think about whether their children's welfare is more important then their own empirically unsupported distaste for swatting.
Thank you.