corporal punishment

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, you've posted what amounts to a "Letter to the Editor" in a response to an article published earlier in the journal. Have to say, it seems a bit underhanded to say, "This was published in Pediatrics the journal of the AAP " without qualifying it.

But then earlier you turned to the "The American College of Pediatricians" which, by reports, seems to have a similar lack of integrity.

Do you have any comments on its contents?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I can tell, you've posted what amounts to a "Letter to the Editor" in a response to an article published earlier in the journal. Have to say, it seems a bit underhanded to say, "This was published in Pediatrics the journal of the AAP " without qualifying it.

But then earlier you turned to the "The American College of Pediatricians" which, by reports, seems to have a similar lack of integrity.

Murray Straus has been independently criticised for deliberately misrepresenting the arguments made by those who do not believe the evidence supports an outright ban on smacking.

To be consistent, you should therefore now question the validity of his views.

Or does this not matter when someone agrees with you?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The way you satisfactorily prove them wrong is not to point out their religious conservatism or homophobic tendencies, but to provide evidence and arguments as to why they are wrong.

You have none so your resort to the only method you have left.

What are your views on Robert Larzelere's evidence?

Let me see if I understand correctly.

You made the following claim:
"I answered your question. Now for a change answer one of mine."

I point out the fact that you answered neither of my questions, yet tried to make it seem like you did.

Now you've gone off on a couple of completely unrelated tangents which included the following:
"The way you satisfactorily prove them wrong is not to point out their religious conservatism or homophobic tendencies..."

I pointed out neither, yet you try to make it seem as if I did.

What's up with that?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/nztabconts.47.pdf

Here is an article which sets out the case that different frequencies and severity of spanking has different effectiveness and impacts. It finds no justification for a complete spanking ban.

TOO : this is called evidence. Please read and explain why you believe that condi ...[text shortened]... ubbish him with. But make sure you find something for all the others that support his view.

As a reminder, as you seem to be ignoring this, please explain why the writer and the people who endorse this report are 'ignorant'? What have they missed in all the decades they have been studying this issue?

What agenda do they have, as some do not personally support smacking?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see if I understand correctly.

You made the following claim:
"I answered your question. Now for a change answer one of mine."

I point out the fact that you answered neither of my questions, yet tried to make it seem like you did.

Now you've gone off on a couple of completely unrelated tangents which included the following:
"The way you
I pointed out neither, yet you try to make it seem as if I did.

What's up with that?

The quote you cited mentions both of those issues and you then said 'it just gets worse' for the ACP. You clearly thought this was relevant to whether we should accept their views on the study they were commenting on.

However, as you now accept what you posted is irrelevant to the validity of their arguments, I wonder why you bothered to post it. It is because you have no arguments against it, and why you grasped so gleefully at the straw which I offered you.

Which was my point and you fell for it. It worked better than I expected.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]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, did of reform, etc.[/b]

Thank you for this response, it made for interesting reading and you have highlighted a couple of points where I can now recognise how my position is not sound - in particular the definition of CP I'm working with (and thus agree with your initial contention with my position). I intend to respond to this one more fully once I get some free time away from preparing for/attending job interviews (could be several days).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see if I understand correctly.

You made the following claim:
"I answered your question. Now for a change answer one of mine."

I point out the fact that you answered neither of my questions, yet tried to make it seem like you did.

Now you've gone off on a couple of completely unrelated tangents which included the following:
"The way you ...[text shortened]...
I pointed out neither, yet you try to make it seem as if I did.

What's up with that?

I am also glad that you agree that the way to prove them wrong is to post evidence or arguments as to why they are wrong.

Perhaps you would do so now.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The quote you cited mentions both of those issues and you then said 'it just gets worse' for the ACP. You clearly thought this was relevant to whether we should accept their views on the study they were commenting on.

However, as you now accept what you posted is irrelevant to the validity of their arguments, I wonder why you bothered to post it. ...[text shortened]... h I offered you.

Which was my point and you fell for it. It worked better than I expected.

The following is what I posted. I have placed the questions in bold.:

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, 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.

[/quote]

You answered neither question and yet claimed, "I answered your question. Now for a change answer one of mine."

Seriously?

Now you're trying to claim that things about that post that are clearly untrue and making other spurious claims.

Are you incapable of making an honest post?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The following is what I posted. I have placed the questions in bold.:
[quote]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 w making other spurious claims.

Are you incapable of making an honest post?

http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/nztabconts.47.pdf

You have claimed to be interested in debating this issue. I have now read probably 40 or 50 articles on this subject, including all those posted by you. Your evidence does not address the question we were discussing. This one goes right to the heart of the matter and deals with the second point you make about alternative forms of discipline.

You continue to duck responding to it, which suggests that you are not interested in debating any point which conflicts with your preconceived views. You might call this myopic.

So, please tell me:

1 Why are these experts in their field wrong?

2 What is the agenda of those who do not personally advocate the use of spanking in supporting this report?

3 Do you think they would support the mild sexual stimulation of children?

The truth will make you free.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/nztabconts.47.pdf

You have claimed to be interested in debating this issue. I have now read probably 40 or 50 articles on this subject, including all those posted by you. Your evidence does not address the question we were discussing. This one goes right to the heart of the matter and deals ...[text shortened]... ink they would support the mild sexual stimulation of children?

The truth will make you free.

The truth will make you free. 😀 Classic

Originally posted by stellspalfie
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?

A rare moderate Baptist (from Massachusetts) who told me his church in Massachusetts taught that the spare the rod spoil the child scripture did not mean to strike your child but instead to guide your child. In other words, the rod was symbolic of the rod a shepherd uses to guide, nudge, and prod sheep, and not symbolic of striking your child with a rod in punishment.

Originally posted by moon1969
A rare moderate Baptist (from Massachusetts) who told me his church in Massachusetts taught that the spare the rod spoil the child scripture did not mean to strike your child but instead to guide your child. In other words, the rod was symbolic of the rod a shepherd uses to guide, nudge, and prod sheep, and not symbolic of striking your child with a rod in punishment.

Again, if christians cant agree on what should be taken literally and what shouldn't from the bible, you're are going to have trouble.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
http://humansciences.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/nztabconts.47.pdf

You have claimed to be interested in debating this issue. I have now read probably 40 or 50 articles on this subject, including all those posted by you. Your evidence does not address the question we were discussing. This one goes right to the heart of the matter and deals ...[text shortened]... ink they would support the mild sexual stimulation of children?

The truth will make you free.

It would seem that RO believes that the way to the truth is through disingenuousness and deceit. RO was given a clear example of this and seems to be taking the tack that if he doesn’t acknowledge it, it isn’t true. This seems to have occurred much too frequently to have been an aberration.

As an example, RO knows full well, I’ve posted it often enough, the stance of the AAP:

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.

Yet RO says things such as:

As Robert Larzelere is one of the leaders in the study of this topic, and has done detailed studies over decades, can you explain what it is that you know that he doesn't… However, TOO, with his wealth of pediatric and child psychology expertise…

Now perhaps it is simply lost on RO that the question isn’t what I know, but what the AAP knows that Larzelere doesn’t. But I have no reason believe RO incapable of understanding this. So, it would seem that RO believes that if he doesn’t acknowledge the stance of the AAP and instead pretends that it is a question of Larzelere vs. me, that the AAP stance doesn't exist. Can RO be any more disingenuous?

If Larzelere is in fact “one of the leaders in the study of this topic”, then the AAP should be well aware of his opinions and evidently have found them lacking – otherwise they would have adopted Larzelere’s stance. Clearly Larzelere’s stance is in the minority. That the AAP “STRONGLY opposes striking a child for any reason” would seem to indicate that Larzelere’s is a small minority at that.

Perhaps what is also lost on RO, is that the Larzelere paper RO cites is largely an affirmation of Larzelere’s own past studies and conclusions. There’s a surprise. Someone affirming his own conclusions.

RO has also cited the opinions of the American College of Pediatricians. Of them RO said:

I have simply quoted one pediatric association, and you have quoted another. Why should I believe you rather than them?

Once again, the ACP is a small minority. According to wiki, the AAP has “60 to 200” members vs. the 60,000 of the AAP. Also according to wiki the ACP was founded to support an agenda which is never a good idea for getting to the truth. To top it off, the ACP doesn’t seem to be at all reputable: http://www.citypages.com/2010-05-26/news/university-of-minnesota-professor-s-research-hijacked/

I could easily cite more instances of where RO is disingenuous and/or deceitful. Seems like RO is so desperate to make a point that he’s lost all perspective. But then, given that RO is advocating for the right to hit defenseless children, it would seem that RO was without perspective to begin with. We're living in an age where many trainers are strongly opposed to hitting DOGS because the view it as inhumane. That there are still those who advocate hitting defenseless children is too much for words.

The following definitions of "corporal punishment" and "spanking" used in Larzelere's article were interesting:

I will use the definitions of corporal punishment and spanking from the only scientific consensus
conference on corporal punishment, co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics in
1996:
Spanking [called smacking in some countries] was “defined as:
a. physically non-injurious;
b. intended to modify behavior; and
c. administered with an opened hand to the extremities or buttocks.”

Corporal punishment [or physical punishment] is a broader term, “defined as bodily punishment
of any kind, is a form of discipline, and spanking is a form of corporal punishment.

The following definitions of "violent" and "nonviolent" are also interesting:

Both American Humane and UNICEF are interested in protecting children’s safety and well-being.In pursuit of this common goal, my staff and I analyzed data collected by UNICEF in 2005-2006 and wrote a preliminary report...The surveys divided discipline into two forms: violent and nonviolent. Violent discipline included psychological practices such as yelling and name calling and physical practices ranging from shaking and spanking to hitting with an object, slapping and beating repeatedly.

Nonviolent discipline included explaining to the child, giving him something else to do and giving consequences for undesirable actions.

Pasted from <http://americanhumaneblog.org/2010/07/spanking-time-out-or-name-calling-how-people-discipline-their-children/>

Perhaps they will help LJ understand the foolishness of backing into definitions as he insisted on doing. Couple this with his refusal to look at the "big picture" and it's no wonder that he was "confused".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The following definitions of "corporal punishment" and "spanking" used in Larzelere's article were interesting:

[quote][b]I will use the definitions of corporal punishment and spanking from the only scientific consensus
conference on corporal punishment, co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics in
1996:
Spanking [called smacking in ...[text shortened]... is refusal to look at the "big picture" and it's no wonder that he was "confused".

The problem with our society is that many have come to believe in the broader definition of discipline, which makes spanking and raising ones voice to a child to be child abuse. 😏