corporal punishment

Originally posted by Agerg
You might have lost interest in this thread but here is my response anyway...


Ok, my phraseology might require a bit of work (or explaining). If I think that I "want" (or "desire" ), say, food (as I would assert many other non-human creatures would have reason to think) then this thing which is unpleasant to me (hunger), I reason quite primitively can be s here (and elsewhere) and so I don't include them in my own definition.

You might have lost interest in this thread but here is my response anyway...

I lost interest, and my patience, with some of the participants of this thread because they clearly lack the objectivity required to debate responsibly on some views presented here; don't much bother themselves to read the arguments that others offer (for instance, didn't even bother to take the time to understand what the other side's stance actually even was in substance before they jump to label it sickening and the like); grotesquely manipulate and misrepresent the select few they do bother to read; don't offer any actual arguments of their own worth taking seriously; don't even answer the most basic and reasonable of questions, or even systematically evade or obscure clarification on such simple questions (such as how one of the references that they themselves introduced into the discussion defines its key, central term); etc; etc.

However, you are clearly not one of these people. I appreciate your considered response and would like to therefore respond in kind.

If I think that I "want" (or "desire" ), say, food (as I would assert many other non-human creatures would have reason to think) then this thing which is unpleasant to me (hunger), I reason quite primitively can be resolved by eating food (I remember I have eaten food in the past and doing this stopped me from feeling hungry).

I think you would be wrong in that assertion. It's very implausible that these kinds of thoughts are prevalent in the non-human animal kingdom. You have major problems right off the bat, since to hold the thought *I* "want" or "desire" this or that requires self-consciousness, which is not known to be manifested in many species. I think it is only a handful or so (elephants, dolphins, chimps, etc) that the experts agree have such capacity and only a handful that pass such things as the mirror test. Secondly, you are requiring quite a lot of mentality, by way of wants, desires, memories, introspection on one's feelings, etc. This is already a lot to require, and like I said, this would touch on many tough and contentious questions regarding animal cognition. Although, on the other hand, it's not clear how exactly you intend these terms, and there are ways to intend them that do not implicate much by way of cognition (more on that below).

I don't think there is any requirement for sophisticated thought on the part of X here. Indeed many dogs, tigers, spiders, etc... if hungry would see that finding and eating food is preferable than, say, chasing their tail, sleeping, not constructing a web, etc... (respectively)

As I said above, simply the fact that you are requiring self-consciousness dooms your claim that such thought is prevalent in non-human animals. If you want to require that they have preferences regarding alternative states of affairs, then this also renders false your claim that there is no sophisticated thought here: having preferences is not NOT sophisticated and would again touch on tough questions regarding animal cognition. For instance, you really think a spider finds some states of affairs preferable to others? (But again, this may depend on how you intend such a term as 'preference'. )

Regarding those terms (such as "wants", "desires", "preference", introspection on feelings, etc), if you take a behavioral-like approach, then these may not implicate much by way of cognition. I will give you an example here. I have seen work by Daniel Dennett where he argues the following (quote taken from "Do Animals Have Beliefs?" from Herbert Roitblat, ed., Comparative Approaches to Cognitive Sciences, MIT Press, 1995):

....Do animals have beliefs? I have said Yes, supporting my claim by pointing to the undeniable fact that their behavior can often be predicted (and explained, and manipulated) using what I call the intentional stance (Dennett, 1971, 1987)--the strategy of treating them as "rational agents" whose actions are those they deem most likely to further their "desires" given their "beliefs". One can often predict or explain what an animal will do by simply noticing what it notices and figuring out what it wants. The raccoon wants the food in the box-trap, but knows better than to walk into a potential trap where it can't see its way out. That's why you have to put two open doors on the trap--so that the animal will dare to enter the first, planning to leave by the second if there's any trouble. You'll have a hard time getting a raccoon to enter a trap that doesn't have an apparent "emergency exit" that closes along with the entrance. I take it that this style of explanation and prediction is uncontroversially valuable--it works, and it works because raccoons (for instance) are that smart. That fact suffices, given what I mean by "belief", to show that raccoons have beliefs--and desires, of course. One might call the latter items preferences, or goals, or wants, or values, but whatever you call them, their specification involves the use of intentional (mentalistic) idioms. That guarantees that translating between "desire"-talk and "preference" or "goal" talk is trivial, so I view the connotational differences between these terms as theoretically irrelevant. The same thing holds for beliefs, of course; you might as well call the state of the raccoon a belief, since if you call it a "registration" or a "data-structure" in the "environmental information store" or some other technical term, the logic you use to draw inferences about the animal's behavior, given its internal states, will be the standard, "intentionalistic" logic of belief....

Is this something like your position regarding your claim that animals have beliefs, desires, wants, preferences, so forth? If so, okay. (Although the position seems to have glaring problems. In fact, the view seems positively absurd, since it implies that things like thermostats have beliefs. Of course, Dennett doesn't find this absurd and actually defends the position that, indeed, thermostats have beliefs. 🙄 ).

But I would still make two points in the context of this thread.

For one, even if you can significantly dilute the cognitive requirements for 'CP' in such ways that your claim that 'CP' is prevalent in non-human species is true; this understanding of 'CP' will not have any relevance to the term CP as it is being used in discussions such as this. If you look back at the quote of how Straus defines CP, he uses a pretty standard definition for this type of discussion. His definition involves explicitly the conscious, deliberate intention to bring about pain for some further end which involves normative notions (such as the "correction" of behavior). Taken in this context, the claim that CP is prevalent in non-humans is totally dubious.

For two, again, this is all just one big aside. The fact is: *even if* you could justifiably claim that CP is prevalent throughout nature; and *even if* you meant 'CP' in precisely the same was as understood in this discussion; that would have no real relevance to a discussion regarding the ethics of CP. Again, to claim otherwise would be to commit some version of naturalistic fallacy, as I commented before.

I am not aware of any commonly used definitions of CP that have morality built into them (as opposed to corollaries when we consider CP with the definitions of other concepts)

Almost all commonly used definitions of CP that I have seen have intentionality incorporated into them, and also have normative or moralistic dimension to them. For instance, a common definition of CP is that CP is the use of physical force with the intention to cause physical pain to an individual for some further end related to correcting or controlling that individual's behavior; or retribution. But note that these ends have thoroughly normative or moralistic dimensions. The idea of "correcting" or reforming behavior involves normative dimension in this context. And 'retribution' in this context is definitionally tied to things like desert, which is thoroughly moralistic. The idea that this type of CP is prevalent in the non-human animal kingdom is implausible.

Physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.

Even looking at this definition that you cite, the idea that this does not involve normative or moralistic dimension is, I would think, false. The term 'punishment' often has thoroughly normative or moralistic dimension, especially regarding the subject of CP. Of course, there are purely descriptive notions of 'punishment' or 'retaliation' as it relates to talk of adaptive behaviors that are prevalent in the animal kingdom, such as you might find in books that discuss evolutionary theory or mechanisms of natural selection. But if you think this is how 'punishment' is intended in a definition of CP, then I think you are way off base. Punishment in this context is a normative or moralistic term, related to things like moral desert, the notion of transgression, the purpose of reform, etc.

May 26, 2009

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Den A. Trumbull, MD, Vice President
American College of Pediatricians
Phone: 888-376-1877
mail@ACPeds.org

The American College of Pediatricians Challenges Report on Spanking

Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph.D. authored a report, Physical Punishment in the United States, published by Center for Effective Discipline. This report presents flawed research to build a biased case against the use of spanking of children by their parents and to advocate for a ban on its use. Unfortunately, medical organizations have endorsed the report’s conclusions even though it is based primarily on her misguided 2002 meta-analysis of corporal punishment research.  Her analysis fails to answer these crucial questions: 
· Do all forms of “corporal punishment” (from abusive, injurious physical attacks to disciplinary spanking by parents) produce the same effect upon children?
· What are the effects of non-abusive spanking on children?  And does effectiveness depend on the child’s age, the situation, cultural context, etc.?
· If parents choose to spank, what is the most effective method and setting?
· How do the effects of spanking compare with alternate disciplinary tactics (such as time-out) that parents might use instead?
 
Of the six scientific reviews of physical discipline of children published between 1996 and 2005, her review is the only one of the six that supports an absolutist anti-spanking conclusion. The other reviews conclude that the outcome of physical discipline depends upon how and when it is used, and further conclude that non abusive spanking can be an effective component of a comprehensive disciplinary plan with children between the ages of 2 and 6 years.
Effective discipline is based on a foundation of a positive, loving parent-child relationship and the skillful use of a variety of disciplinary measures. Parents need to prudently use the mildest effective tactics in responding to misbehavior. When necessary, disciplinary spanking of young children can be useful, effective, and harmless.
Parents need reliable information about how to effectively discipline their children. Dr. Gershoff fails in this effort.

More details are available at www.BestforChildren.org
The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being.

The question to TOO is, how would we satisfactorily go about showing that the views of the ACP are incorrect?

Originally posted by Agerg
Oh this could be funny! And how am I like galveston75? 😵

If you would have told GF to "shake the dust off your feet", you would have sealed it.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Really?

In a real debate you answer questions posed to you.

So do you have any evidence that mild child swatting is harmful?

Fourth or fifth time of asking.

And you say others are disingenuous?

If you want a debate, just answer the question. You can always say 'no, but the question is irrelevant to my position.'

But it's a valid ques ...[text shortened]... hen answer googlefudge's question, which he has politely asked you the same number if times.

I pretty much have in at least a couple of different ways - just not in those words.

For example earlier you asked the following which seems to give the underlying reasons you believe your question to be valid:

Let me use one of your techniques and answer a question with a question.
If it is so clear that infrequent child swatting is harmful, why have the many organisations who support an outright ban never been able to provide any evidence this is the case? Many are extremely well resourced and motivated to do so.

Many supporters of an outright ban ar me thing as saying every instance of child swattting is harmful and the APA has not said it is.

I responded with the following. If you hadn't pitched a hissy fit, perhaps you would have understood the point.

What about "mild infrequent" sexual stimulation of infants?

So far as I know, organizations that support an outright ban on the sexual abuse of children have "never been able to provide any evidence" that the above is harmful even though they are "well resourced and motivated to do so".

Do you similarly draw the following conclusion?
"Many supporters of an outright ban are motivated by the fear that, if they give any ground, or send out a mixed message, parents will use this as a justification for more abusive behaviour. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile, as it were."

As for me, I'm strongly opposed to the sexual abuse of children in any and all forms for any and all reasons whether or not such evidence has been provided.

I've provided plenty of evidence that there are alternatives to the striking of children that are both effective and best for the well-being of children in the short and long term. You've chosen to dismiss it in an effort to continue to wrongheadedly advocate for the "rights" of parents to strike defenseless children.

It's the wrong question.

And then answer googlefudge's question, which he has politely asked you the same number if times.

GF only need look if he’s genuinely interested.

As I told GF earlier:
“I've already provided the text in question and an explanation, not once but twice.”

Let’s look at claims GF has made since then:

So far all you have done is repost selected parts of my posts and then scream hypocrite.
Actually I’d also offered an explanation, not once but twice

If you think I have been hypocritical, then explain where and how.
Above GF’s already acknowledged that he knows the text in question, yet now he’s acting as if he doesn’t even know “where or when” he has been hypocritical.

You have posted WHAT you apparently think is hypocritical…
So I ask again for you to explain what about my posts you think is hypocritical.
Now it seems GF once again knows the text in question, but still refuses to acknowledge the explanation.

So will you explain what you think I have said is hypocritical?...
You have not yet provided any explanation, or if you have it wasn't good enough.
Here GF once again claims that I haven’t “provided ANY explanation”, but seems to concede that it’s possible I have. I guess that progress of sorts.

As with it so often happens with RC, it’s clear that he’s primarily interested in denying and “playing the victim”. Seems pointless to keep catering to either of them after it reaches that point.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
[quote]May 26, 2009

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Den A. Trumbull, MD, Vice President
American College of Pediatricians
Phone: 888-376-1877
mail@ACPeds.org

The American College of Pediatricians Challenges Report on Spanking

Elizabeth Gershoff, Ph.D. authored a report, Physical Punishment in the United States, published by C ...[text shortened]... is, how would we [b]satisfactorily go about showing that the views of the ACP are incorrect?[/b]

You certainly seem to have a way of asking the wrong questions.

Sounds like an organization with an agenda to promote ignorant and wrongheaded views. Seems appropriate that you'd turn to such an organization.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You certainly seem to have a way of asking the wrong questions.

Sounds like an organization with an agenda to promote ignorant and wrongheaded views. Seems appropriate that you'd use them to bolster your position.

I have simply quoted one pediatric association, and you have quoted another.

Why should I believe you rather than them?

The fact that you quoted one, and assumed it was a clinching argument, then throw a hissy fit when I quote one back at you could be called something.

Hypocrisy springs to mind.

Strange that you follow a different set of rules to those that you expect others to follow.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I pretty much have in at least a couple of different ways - just not in those words.

For example earlier you asked the following which seems to give the underlying reasons you believe your question to be valid:
[quote]Let me use one of your techniques and answer a question with a question.
If it is so clear that infrequent child swatting is harmful, ems pointless to keep catering to either of them after it reaches that point.

It is amazing that your main debating technique seems to be to refuse to answer the question

You are fooling no one.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You certainly seem to have a way of asking the wrong questions.

Sounds like an organization with an agenda to promote ignorant and wrongheaded views. Seems appropriate that you'd turn to such an organization.

How do we determine whether the AAP has a wrong headed agenda?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I have simply quoted one pediatric association, and you have quoted another.

Why should I believe you rather than them?

The fact that you quoted one, and assumed it was a clinching argument, then throw a hissy fit when I quote one back at you could be called something.

Hypocrisy springs to mind.

Strange how the rules you insist others follow don't seem to apply to you.

Can't say that I'm surprised that you'd be so naive to consider one 'pediatric association" the same as another. You've repeatedly shown a strong tendency to be myopic in your views.

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals specializing in the care of infants, children and adolescents in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[1][2] The ACPeds website reports members in 47 states of the United States and five other countries,[3] but does not disclose the total member count. The group's membership has been estimated at between 60 and 200 members.[1][4][5]

Zanga has described ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by a different-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[6] The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities, which hold that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[4][7][8] A number of prominent researchers have complained that ACPeds mischaracterized or misused their work to advance its agenda.[1][9]

Read the article in it's entirety. It just gets worse for the ACP. Also take time out to read the following article to gain some insight into their tactics.
http://www.citypages.com/2010-05-26/news/university-of-minnesota-professor-s-research-hijacked/

If you still see them on equal footing, let me know and I'll highlight what I'm seeing.

Still believe your accusation of hypocrisy fits?

Like I said:
"Sounds like an organization with an agenda to promote ignorant and wrongheaded views. Seems appropriate that you'd turn to such an organization."

Originally posted by Rank outsider
It is amazing that your main debating technique seems to be to refuse to answer the question

You are fooling no one.

Actually read and consider what I wrote and how it answers your questions - albeit indirectly. I'm sure it'll be a big reach for you to do so, but you really should try to stretch your mind a bit.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can't say that I'm surprised that you'd be so naive to consider one 'pediatric association" the same as another. You've repeatedly shown a strong tendency to be myopic in your views.

From wiki:
[quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative associatio wrongheaded views. Seems appropriate that you'd turn to such an organization."

I had already read about the ACP before I posted the quote. Hence why I put the word "satisfactorily" in bold.

Now please explain what are your reasons for dismissing what they have to say?

You seem to be using an ad hominem argument, which you accused me of earlier.

Which again sounds a bit hypocritical.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually read and consider what I wrote and how it answers your questions - albeit indirectly. I'm sure it'll be a big reach for you to do so, but you really should try to stretch your mind a bit.

Ok I'll make the leap.

You admit you don't have any evidence that child swatting is harmful, but you think this is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I had already read about the ACP before I posted the quote. Hence why I put the word "satisfactorily" in bold.

Now please explain what are your reasons for dismissing what they have to say?

You seem to be using an ad hominem argument, which you accused me of earlier.

Which again sounds a bit hypocritical.

I had already read about the ACP before I posted the quote. Hence why I put the word "satisfactorily" in bold.


lol. Nice try.

It might have flown if you hadn't also posted the following:

I have simply quoted one pediatric association, and you have quoted another.

Why should I believe you rather than them?

The fact that you quoted one, and assumed it was a clinching argument, then throw a hissy fit when I quote one back at you could be called something.

Hypocrisy springs to mind.

Strange that you follow a different set of rules to those that you expect others to follow.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Ok I'll make the leap.

You admit you don't have any evidence that child swatting is harmful, but you think this is irrelevant.

Give it another pass or two. There's much more to be gleaned than that.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I had already read about the ACP before I posted the quote. Hence why I put the word "satisfactorily" in bold.


lol. Nice try.

It might have flown if you hadn't also posted the following:

I have simply quoted one pediatric association, and you have quoted another.

Why should I believe you rather than them?

The fact that you ...[text shortened]... that you follow a different set of rules to those that you expect others to follow.

[/b]

I am comfortable with my reasons for posting it. Whether you like it or not, everything I have said is true.

Now answer the question, why do you reject out of hand what they have to say?

Is it that they are a religious association, for example?