04 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am not driving at anything. You said you were speaking against striking a child to change their behaviour. You position is much broader and absolutist.
[b]Actually in your second post, you were clear that you thought there were no reasons to strike a child in any circumstances. ('There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period.'😉
Yes, that's what I said. What are you driving at?
googlefudge has been clear, as have others, that they believe it can be acceptable to strike a child in certa ...[text shortened]... ut that. Hopefully I've been clear that I don't share that belief. What are you driving at?
On the second point, googlefudge couldn't have been clearer what his position is and that he is against striking a child 'in general'. So I wonder what you were driving at, as I can't believe you seriously needed confirmation of this point.
04 Nov 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI am not driving at anything. You said you were speaking against striking a child to change their behaviour. You position is much broader and absolutist.
I am not driving at anything. You said you were speaking against striking a child to change their behaviour. You position is much broader and absolutist.
On the second point, googlefudge couldn't have been clearer what his position is and that he is against striking a child 'in general'. So I wonder what you were driving at, as I can't believe you seriously needed confirmation of this point.
Still not sure what you're taking exception to here. The thread topic is 'Corporal Punishment' which, to me, is ultimately about "changing behavior". Toward that, that's what this discussion has focused on.
On the second point, googlefudge couldn't have been clearer what his position is and that he is against striking a child 'in general'. So I wonder what you were driving at, as I can't believe you seriously needed confirmation of this point.
A key part of the statement was 'AND believe it to be harmful' which means that both parts have to be true for the entire statement to be true. While that part can probably safely be taken as true, I thought it important to explicitly confirm it. All it takes is a, "Yes" or "No" (with clarification for the "No" )
I'd be interested in your answer as well.
BTW, I'm getting the impression that you're looking to contest every possible niggling detail at the expense of the larger picture, ala bbarr.
04 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell bbar was able to debunk the evidence that you posted to show why it wasn't relevant to the debate people were actually having at the time, and generally quite shaky.
[b]I am not driving at anything. You said you were speaking against striking a child to change their behaviour. You position is much broader and absolutist.
Still not sure what you're taking exception to here. The thread topic is 'Corporal Punishment' which, to me, is ultimately about "changing behavior". Toward that, that's what this discussion y possible niggling detail at the expense of the larger picture, ala bbarr.[/b]
I think I have made my position pretty clear on where I stand. But since you ask, I do not support corporal punishment (as explained by googlefudge) at all. It's use is offensive and unjustifiable and harmful.
However, I can conceive of circumstances where the use of a minimum level of force may be best solution to the immediate problem. I would use it in some circumstances relating to imminent danger where other options were not available or were not working. I would not personally use it for the tantrum scenario.
The difference between you and me is that, whilst I take a different position to googlefudge, I do not leap to demonise his position, especially when you have, as yet, offered no evidence to support your view that it is ignorant and wrong headed.
I see it more as a matter of personal choice, as I don't think it does any harm, and I also accept the possibility I might well be wrong.
04 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderCan't be sure, but I'll take your response as if it were "Yes" to my question and proceed on that basis. If this is not correct, please let me know.
Well bbar was able to debunk the evidence that you posted to show why it wasn't relevant to the debate people were actually having at the time, and generally quite shaky.
I think I have made my position pretty clear on where I stand. But since you ask, I do not support corporal punishment (as explained by googlefudge) at all. It's use is offensive ...[text shortened]... , as I don't think it does any harm, and I also accept the possibility I might well be wrong.
Do you believe "non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying 'No' or 'Stop,' or putting a child back in a time out chair" similarly harmful? If so, how?
Do you believe the following from what I pasted was "debunked"? If so, how?
The immediate-situation effectiveness of spanking is not in dispute. However, non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying "No" or "Stop," or putting a child back in a time out chair, work just as well in the immediate situation
Was this also "debunked"? If so, how?
Finally, non-corporal modes of control also have side effects, but they are likely to be positive, such as a better-developed conscience (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin 1957), higher self-esteem (Coopersmith 1967), and a closer bond between the child and the parent (see Chapter 7).
04 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo, I would not expect any parent to do that, knowingly. I was just bringing that up as some possiblities to consider as to why he does not want to go to bed. It appears that you have fiqured out that he has something that he enjoys far more than getting proper rest.
If I let him, he would watch Power Rangers till the early hours.
Do you really think if he was experiencing bad dreams or was afraid of the dark I would simply 'force' him to bed?
04 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo kids want to go to bed. But as a responsible parent you have to make sure they get enough Z's if they have school the next day.
No, I would not expect any parent to do that, knowingly. I was just bringing that up as some possiblities to consider as to why he does not want to go to bed. It appears that you have fiqured out that he has something that he enjoys far more than getting proper rest.
It's a part of existing in a society, ie. consolidating your values with societies.
As a punk-hippie myself I have had to do a lot of "soul searching" within myself to get the right balance between my values and what society expects of parents.
Mind you, if you go 300 clicks down the road (just a short distance in Aussie terms) , you get to Northern New South Wales where the 'Hippy Central' is found - Nimbin - the most smallest international town (that I know of) exists. (like chalk and cheese)
But aside from that I've been following this discussion and I cant help but feel that some of the participants are having trouble distinguishing between violent actions and the actions of a loving parent. I hear of people talk of "tough love" and though while I'm not an advocate of most of their screwed up ideas, I am in agreement with their general stance on parenting.
(Back in the early 80's I had recieved "the cane" ( a stick about 30cm long that the principle would 'discipline' kids with by whacking their hands with it) , twice for pretty mild behaviour(getting my shirt dirty during lunch break, playing marbles). The reaction to such violence from schools (and from parents) was to get back in touch with ...whatever peaceful hippy stuff to be less violent with kids. These 'tough love' advocates say that we have gone too far and need to balance this out , as political correctness runs wild, and I tend to agree with them)
05 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieAs I understand 'corporal punishment' it relates to the deliberate intention to bring about pain as a means for discipline; or behavior modification; or what is believed to be deserved recompense; etc. No, I don't advocate this in any way.
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?
05 Nov 12
Originally posted by AgergThis sounds like an argument that will suffer from some form of naturalistic fallacy.
For all our mental sophistication when we mature, we are still animals. Almost every other human chastises its young with a short, sharp, and non-permanent shock when said young is doing something "bad". That we don't (because a committee has decided we shouldn't) is to betray the simple fact that as the natural world shows us, it's effective! It's especially ...[text shortened]... rong (or whether there is a great urgency in preventing some action from happening again)
05 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you believe the following from what I pasted was "debunked"? If so, how?
Can't be sure, but I'll take your response as if it were "Yes" to my question and proceed on that basis. If this is not correct, please let me know.
Do you believe "non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying 'No' or 'Stop,' or putting a child back in a time out chair" nd a closer bond between the child and the parent (see Chapter 7).
[/quote]
The immediate-situation effectiveness of spanking is not in dispute. However, non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying "No" or "Stop," or putting a child back in a time out chair, work just as well in the immediate situation
Was this also "debunked"? If so, how?
Finally, non-corporal modes of control also have side effects, but they are likely to be positive, such as a better-developed conscience (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin 1957), higher self-esteem (Coopersmith 1967), and a closer bond between the child and the parent (see Chapter 7).
I admit to being very confused about the exchange between you and bbarr. I've read through the posts quite carefully. If one looks carefully at what bbarr is claiming; and if one looks closely at these excerpts from what you pasted; they seem to, if anything, jibe. For example, your quote states that there are several non-violent & non-corporal control methods that are superior to spanking (given as a paradigmatic example of CP) in the combined categories of general effectiveness and longer term side effects. Well, if anything, that seems good for bbarr's case, since his claims are also in reference to a non-violent, non-corporal method that would also stand as an alternative to spanking (unless your reference uses some quite different definition of CP as what I sketched out above). Am I missing something here?
This outlines a problem for your argument here: you have taken the stance that no striking of a child could be permissible; but what you have posted seems to have no actual argumentative force against certain methods of striking, such as the 'swatting' outlined by bbarr.
For full disclosure, I do not see myself ever implementing the swatting method. However, barring empirical evidence that would show that this form of non-violent, non-corporal method is inferior to the other such methods you have listed in the categories of effectiveness or side effects, etc, I am not sure what the actual issue is here.
I don't think what bbarr outlined in the swatting method could reasonably be construed as CP under any sane reading of the that term. It seems that many here have jumped on it because the swatting action itself bears a resemblance to a CP method like spanking. Actually it doesn't, though: the underlying intentions are different (in fact, irreconcilably so surrounding the issue of physiological pain, which as I understand it, is commonly definitional to CP), and bbarr's necessary conditions for the permissibility of the swatting seem actually quite strict.
05 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree with your take here. But I too feel as though I'm missing something here.
[b]Do you believe the following from what I pasted was "debunked"? If so, how?
[quote]The immediate-situation effectiveness of spanking is not in dispute. However, non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying "No" or "Stop," or putting a child back in a time out chair, ary conditions for the permissibility of the swatting seem actually quite strict.
Think of One continually has disdain for anyone advocating smacking a child in anyway.
Heck, he even got Wolfie to say it is 'sickening'. Like I have mentioned : It is prolly more sickening to see your child smashed by a car.
And more sickening still to think that you, as a parent, could have prevented it by doing your job properly as a parent.
Too many times I see kids walking all over their parents in public. I know for a fact that these same families act quite differently behind closed doors.
What is ToO's experience of this? I doubt he will give as any insights - heck I don't even know if he has kids. (I have met many a childless person who thinks they know it all when it comes to parenting... the day to day reality lost on them as they criticize parents openly about how to do it right. )
The ideal is (as every sane parent should know) is to not be violent towards your kids in any way. The reality may differ.
I think there needs to be a line drawn between parents who lose their temper and smack a child (and thus often lose control as to how hard to smack them) , and parents who are in full control of themselves and can prevent or deter extremely dangerous conduct by their kids.
(The tantrum should not be dealt with smacking , however I do think that some physical restraint is called for on certain tantrums. )
05 Nov 12
To ToO, you have put a pic in your mind of what you think I am - that is your downfall. You have told me to pause and think about what I am doing , as if there was something majorly wrong with my parenting and tried to link my experience with that of others, (the t.v. show you referenced ,etc. ).
i can't help but think your "one-size-fits-all" mentality with religion has clouded your understanding of all human activities, including raising children.
As RJHinds pointed out way back on page 1 - not all kids are the same.
This seems (to me ) to be the fundamental flaw in your argument - that you think a "one-size-fits-all' mentality is required for parenting, which it is clearly not.
Feel free to come and tell me how I have misinterpreted you . You have indirectly pointed a finger at my parenting technique(s) , so I think it only fair that I point one back at you. (And without any further disclosure of your actual experience - or a decent reference (as some posters have asked for) , your "no smack policy" about parenting is just as relevant as those childless parents who think they have all answers.)
05 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsFirm but fair. Exactly. Your kids will respect you when you stick to what you say during the early years of parenting. The need for any physical punishment will decrease and cease very quickly once your child knows that you are serious and your words have consequences. All too often I see parents telling their kids how they are going to discipline them, repeating themselves so often that the child knows that you aren't really going to get up off that couch and really do something about it. As soon as you establish that you mean what you say to your kids, they will stop testing you and know that your words mean what they represent.
Children are not all the same. That is one size does not fit all. The parent is not given an owners manual for each make and model and must learn what works best for both parents and children within the family. Some people do write disciline manuals though that might help. I would not push any particular method however, because the old saysing is spare th ...[text shortened]... don't think this means to be cruel in discipline, it just means to be firm like a rod is firm.
edit: in practice I have found this to be very exhausting at the start,(because of the child's age and their repetitiveness ), however the rewards that will come will far outweigh the efforts that were initially put into it.
05 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelI think part of the general confusion in this thread is that different responders are operating on different readings of the term 'corporal punishment' (CP). As I said earlier, I was under the impression that CP, definitionally, involves the intention to bring about pain (tying in to some further end involving discipline, behavioral modification, or retribution, etc). If everyone were operating under such an understanding of the term, I doubt there would be as much confusion as there is, since it is explicitly clear that, under such a reading and under bbarr's claims, an instance of what bbarr considers to be justifiable swatting does not (and could not) constitute an instance of CP.
I agree with your take here. But I too feel as though I'm missing something here.
Think of One continually has disdain for anyone advocating smacking a child in anyway.
Heck, he even got Wolfie to say it is 'sickening'. Like I have mentioned : It is prolly more sickening to see your child smashed by a car.
And more sickening still to think that y ...[text shortened]... king , however I do think that some physical restraint is called for on certain tantrums. )
It would still be a further question, though, whether such instances of child striking -- though not consituting CP -- should be advocated/employed or not. ToO obviously thinks not. But, as I was saying, I don't think he has actually made that case. I do not really know the answer here (and for disclosure I also have no children yet). But I would add a couple points. One is that, as I mentioned, bbarr's conditions for the justifiability of swatting seem quite strict, to the point that I do not see any obvious objection to what he calls justifiable swatting. Secondly, as I also mentioned, this question could be vetted through empirical data relating to the effectiveness of the various non-CP methods mentioned (ToO has brought up several in what he pasted, bbarr has brought up another, etc). I don't know off-hand any good studies in this area.
As I said, I have never had any kids yet. I cannot see myself implementing any child-striking methods (and for sure no CP methods). However, I claim ignorance on which of the non-CP methods would be, all things considered, best. Also, I can certainly think of many cases in which unintentional pain could come about to one's kids through completely proper and justified care, as a sort of collateral damage. That of course has nothing to do with CP.
05 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, rather than you ask questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed, let me ask you one which is.
Can't be sure, but I'll take your response as if it were "Yes" to my question and proceed on that basis. If this is not correct, please let me know.
Do you believe "non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying 'No' or 'Stop,' or putting a child back in a time out chair" ...[text shortened]... nd a closer bond between the child and the parent (see Chapter 7).
[/quote]
1. Do you have any research which supports the view that mild, infrequent slapping of a child on the bottom in such a way which does not leave a mark, used when other options are not available or have been tried without success, in response to an immediate danger has any short, medium or long term detrimental effects? You have presented none as yet.
2. Do you accept that there is a possibility that research which points to the detrimental affects of corporal punishment used to inflict pain as a means of punishment on a regular and sustained basis may not be valid evidence on which to base a view on the above scenario?
This is the point being debated. Virtually all the posters accept the view that corporal punishment as explained by googlefudge is unacceptable. You are arguing a point that no one else is.
05 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello[/b]If I had to summarize what I think is likely the source of your "confusion", I'd say that your interpretation of terminology leads you to a very different understanding of the pasted text than what I believe was intended. Couple that with the fact that you seem to be "buying" what bb is "selling" and I am not, can only result in "confusion".
[b]Do you believe the following from what I pasted was "debunked"? If so, how?
[quote]The immediate-situation effectiveness of spanking is not in dispute. However, non-violent control strategies, such as explaining to the child, depriving a privilege, or just walking up to a child and saying "No" or "Stop," or putting a child back in a time out chair, ary conditions for the permissibility of the swatting seem actually quite strict.
I'm thinking I might have to lay quite a bit of groundwork to help you unravel things. If you're up for it, I'm willing.