corporal punishment

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, rather than you ask questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed, let me ask you one which is.

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 su ...[text shortened]... shment as explained by googlefudge is unacceptable. You are arguing a point that no one else is.

Well, rather than you ask questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed, let me ask you one which is.

Not sure how you can claim that my questions are not relevant.

You responded to the following post that I made to GF:

What I've been speaking against is striking children to change their behavior.

From what I can tell, you are against striking children in general and believe it to be harmful. Correct?

In that post I was explaining my position and trying to get a better understanding of his in order to decide how to best frame a further explanation. I invited you to answer the question that I asked of him toward that end. And you responded.

I had a few follow-up questions based on your response. Hardly makes sense for you to try to claim that they aren't relevant.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
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" me ...[text shortened]... arenting is just as relevant as those childless parents who think they have all answers.)

I am advocating against the striking of children to change their behavior. You seem to be advocating for the striking of children within certain parameters.

So far as I can tell, you've taken exception to the following statement:

I hope you reread what I posted earlier as I suggested and that it gives you pause about continuing to espouse your attitude towards striking a toddler.

I also made the following statement:

I wasn't trying to "imply" anything about how well you parent (though your attitude towards striking a toddler does give me pause).

There is no implication there that "there was something majorly wrong with [your] parenting."

If these weren't the source of your consternation, point them out and we can discuss it.

I haven't had the chance to respond to some of the challenges made to my opening response in this thread, so I am going to do my best in one shot. To start with, I don't feel particularly coerced into rethinking my position based on the binary arguments (no middle ground, no acknowledgement of grey areas, etc...) opposing CP made by at least one poster (designed I suspect, in terms of phrasing, to attack the very character of those who support them).
As should be obvious I certainly champion the mode of CP espoused by bbarr and googlefudge. As for CP used as a form of punishment (where we can assume the child can be reasoned with) I remain ambivalentReveal Hidden Content

- so I am probably at odds with most of the posters here. One thing I remember when I was young and I had done something which warranted a "good hiding" is that the time I spent waiting for the impending punishment that would occur when my dad returned from workReveal Hidden Content is also the time where I was able to ruminate over what I had done and reason for myself that what I did was wrong, and establish that I regretted having done it Reveal Hidden Content. Had this been merely time alone I'm not so sure now how strong would have been my compulsion to really think about, and learn from what I did wrong (perhaps I would have been thinking about how not to get caught next time since being in the naughty corner is so inconvenient, or figuring out how means to cope with, say, a suspension of pocket money (like coming up with more elaborate money lending schemes to exploit my younger brothers' young age and naivety)).

Certainly the punishment I got as a youngster has not caused any serious damage to me (though I acknowledge the 2/3 don't get lung cancer from smoking counter-argument). I also think there is more work to be done to establish that my claim that it is a well practiced behaviour throughout the natural world is a naturalistic fallacy - certainly it should be reasonable that if CP was ineffective it would have been largely superseded by other less "violent" parenting methods; and furthermore should we always divorce ourselves from appeals to what works in the natural world when considering what is a good strategy for humans!?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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".

I'm th ...[text shortened]... te a bit of groundwork to help you unravel things. If you're up for it, I'm willing.[/b]

Sure, I'm up for it.

I would think the best thing you could do to help me out is to state how the reference from which you pasted those excerpts explicitly defines 'corporal punishment'. If you do that, then I think surely it should be clear whether or not those excerpts provide argumentative fuel against a position like bbarr's position on what counts as justifiable child-swatting.

Originally posted by Agerg
I haven't had the chance to respond to some of the challenges made to my opening response in this thread, so I am going to do my best in one shot. To start with, I don't feel particularly coerced into rethinking my position based on the binary arguments (no middle ground, no acknowledgement of grey areas, etc...) opposing CP made by at least one poster (design o what works in the natural world when considering what is a good strategy for humans!?

I also think there is more work to be done to establish that my claim that it is a well practiced behaviour throughout the natural world is a naturalistic fallacy - certainly it should be reasonable that if CP was ineffective it would have been largely superseded by other less "violent" parenting methods; and furthermore should we always divorce ourselves from appeals to what works in the natural world when considering what is a good strategy for humans!?

The mere claim that offspring-striking features prevalently in nature does not in any way constitute some version of the naturalistic fallacy. What would count as some version of the fallacy (I say "some version" of it because it has different closely related types, such as "naturalistic fallacy", "is-ought fallacy", "appeal to nature", etc, etc) is the following. If one were to imply that because something is 'effective' (in the descriptively factual sense you mean, that it has been selected for and features prevalently in nature), it is therefore ethical or good for us to implement it, etc, then that is obviously fallacious. There would be virtually no work needed to establish that this argument is fallacious, since it is basically a textbook example of such fallacies.

I guess I was sort of being kind before. More to the point, the observation that offspring-striking features prevalently in nature is pretty much wholly irrelevant to a discussion on whether or not humans ought to engage in CP. For one thing, perhaps you can claim that offspring-striking is prevalent in nature; but you CANNOT claim that CP is prevalent in nature, since -- again -- CP definitionally involves underlying intentions and motivations that typically also feature moralistic and normative notions (such as retribution and desert, or reform, etc). The idea that such intentions and motivations are prevalent in the non-human animal kingdom are dubious at best. But, regardless, even if you could justifiably claim that CP is "effective" in the descriptively factual sense you mean that term, that consideration is in itself irrelevant to the question of whether or not humans ought to engage in CP (at pain of the fallacious reasoning described above).

Originally posted by LemonJello
I also think there is more work to be done to establish that my claim that it is a well practiced behaviour throughout the natural world is a naturalistic fallacy - certainly it should be reasonable that if CP was ineffective it would have been largely superseded by other less "violent" parenting methods; and furthermore should we always divorce oursel umans ought to engage in CP (at pain of the fallacious reasoning described above).

The mere claim that offspring-striking features prevalently in nature does not in any way constitute some version of the naturalistic fallacy. What would count as some version of the fallacy (I say "some version" of it because it has different closely related types, such as "naturalistic fallacy", "is-ought fallacy", "appeal to nature", etc, etc) is the following. If one were to imply that because something is 'effective' (in the descriptively factual sense you mean, that it has been selected for and features prevalently in nature), it is therefore ethical or good for us to implement it, etc, then that is obviously fallacious. There would be virtually no work needed to establish that this argument is fallacious, since it is basically a textbook example of such fallacies.
I agree that to conclude X is morally correct from the premise X is commonplace in nature is a fallacious argument (not least since such species should have no ethical motivations for doing X); and if that is what my arguments imply so far that was certainly not my intention.

I guess I was sort of being kind before. More to the point, the observation that offspring-striking features prevalently in nature is pretty much wholly irrelevant to a discussion on whether or not humans ought to engage in CP. For one thing, perhaps you can claim that offspring-striking is prevalent in nature; but you CANNOT claim that CP is prevalent in nature, since -- again -- CP definitionally involves underlying intentions and motivations that typically also feature moralistic and normative notions (such as retribution and desert, or reform, etc).
I don't yet see the reason whyReveal Hidden ContentI am forced to agree with you here. I don't deny that ethics and morality have a significant presence in arguments designed to defeat CP but I have yet to see any widely used definition of CP which goes any further than describing the type of actions (and intent - not necessarily moral or otherwise) underlying CP. Further I'm not entirely convinced yet it is an open and shut case that considering both the short range and long range consequences of CP, that avoiding it is, in all cases, morally superior.
Considering the short range consequences of CP (where I am looking at just the child and the authority figure (independent of society in general or any other variables)), then given a response to some naughty action A which is non-"violent", and a violent response B to the same action it certainly looks tempting to choose A in all circumstances. However we could also play the same game and let A be any response failing to cause the child unhappiness (like naughty steps or denial of privileges), and B be the opposite - why in this case is A not again just as tempting?
Further, if we seek to minimise the amount of social disorder on a wider scale when children have grown up (so long range) I think there is a case to be made that children are becoming more and more disobediant/violent these daysReveal Hidden Content, and that for the sake of pragmatism the greatest good is perhaps achieved by more little (and I really do mean little - you will not see me supporting the cane or flogging etc...) "bads"

The idea that such intentions and motivations are prevalent in the non-human animal kingdom are dubious at best. But, regardless, even if you could justifiably claim that CP is "effective" in the descriptively factual sense you mean that term, that consideration is in itself irrelevant to the question of whether or not humans ought to engage in CP (at pain of the fallacious reasoning described above).
To reiterate the above, I'm not arguing that humans should engage in CP on the basis only of short range morality (nor arguing for that on the motivations of animals)

Originally posted by Agerg
The mere claim that offspring-striking features prevalently in nature does not in any way constitute some version of the naturalistic fallacy. What would count as some version of the fallacy (I say "some version" of it because it has different closely related types, such as "naturalistic fallacy", "is-ought fallacy", "appeal to nature", etc, etc) is the fol of short range morality (nor arguing for that on the motivations of animals)

So what definition of CP are you working under, such that you would (maybe) feel justified in claiming that the practice of CP is prevalent in non-human species?

Originally posted by LemonJello
So what definition of CP are you working under, such that you would (maybe) feel justified in claiming that the practice of CP is prevalent in non-human species?

Any violent action X performed a) to cause physical pain to some creature, and b) to deter that creature from doing whatever motivated X in the future. I don't think I require any moralistic notions in this definition.

Originally posted by Agerg
Any violent action X performed a) to cause physical pain to some creature, and b) to deter that creature from doing whatever motivated X in the future. I don't think I require any moralistic notions in this definition.

Right, so your definition states that instances of CP involve actions, and actions are carried out by agents. So, how many non-human species can we expect to qualify as agents in this regard? For instance, when you claim an instance of CP is "performed ... to cause physical pain to some creature" does that mean that the entity carrying out the action has the mentality sufficient to form intentions that take as their object the conscious states of other creatures? If so, how many non-human species do you expect to satisfy this? If not, then how am I supposed to interpret this section of your definition (with respect to the intentionality on the part of the entity carrying out the CP action)? I would have similar questions related to the part (b) of your definition, too.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right, so your definition states that instances of CP involve actions, and actions are carried out by agents. So, how many non-human species can we expect to qualify as agents in this regard? For instance, when you claim an instance of CP is "performed ... to cause physical pain to some creature" does that mean that the entity carrying out the action ha ...[text shortened]... he CP action)? I would have similar questions related to the part (b) of your definition, too.

Answering "if not", I am working on the principle that any non-human creature desiring that action X does not happen again in the future would choose the best response it knows of (from a very limited set - culled by evolution) to enable that. I don't expect it to ruminate on whether what it "wants" to do works for the greater good of itself, the young, or its species in general.
You might then go on to say that this is entirely irrelevant then to the discussion of CP because by discussing humans, we are discussing moral agents; and if you did say that then we're at an impasse because as I suggested two posts prior (the long one) I'm willing to challenge moral arguments in opposition to CP by considering the greater good (where efficiency and expediency is relevant) (attempting to deal with the what moral humans should do stance), but I won't include morality in my definition of CP...or you might not say that

Originally posted by Agerg
Answering "if not", I am working on the principle that any non-human creature desiring that action X does not happen again in the future would choose the best response it knows of (from a very limited set - culled by evolution) to enable that. I don't expect it to ruminate on whether what it "wants" to do works for the greater good of itself, the young, or its stance), but I won't include morality in my definition of CP...or you might not say that

So you have answered in the negative, meaning, I gather, that by the action's being "performed ... to cause physical pain to some creature" you mean that some entity S does something that happens to bring about physical pain to another creature but through no actual intentionality to do so on the part of the S.

But now you it seems you are claiming that S "desired" that this something he did that happened to cause pain to the other creature have the consequence of preventing future occurences of X and actually "chose" the something that he did as the "best response" S "knows of" to fulfill this desire. How many non-human species do you think this will extend to?

That is still requiring an awful lot of cognition on the part of S! It requires that S have desires and rudimentary strategies for fulfilling them; that S have the capacity to make choices; that S have beliefs or similar doxastic states (since knowledge requires this); etc.

So, totally forget about the moral aspect and moralistic or normative concepts etc (which in fact commonly do enter into definitions regarding CP). The claim, even based on your diluted definition, that CP is prevalent in the non-human animal kingdom would still be dubious at best. To what extent non-human animals are capable of the cognition your require here comprises very difficult and contentious issues within the study of animal cognition. You implied on page 1 that it is a "simple fact" that "chastising" offspring is prevalent in the animal kingdom. However, if this is what you mean by chastising offspring (and, remember, you think you have already pared this down quite a bit to removal the moralistic aspects), then I think the claim that this is prevalent in the animal kingdom is highly dubious. It's certainly not a simple fact.

I'm sure we could pare the definition down even more and further dilute the cognitive requirements involved in CP, such that under this definition CP will extend to a large chunk of the animal kingdom. This definition will no longer have any relevance to what people mean when they engage in discussion about the permissibility of humans engaging in corporal punishment.

DOriginally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Well, rather than you ask questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed, let me ask you one which is.

Not sure how you can claim that my questions are not relevant.

You responded to the following post that I made to GF:
[quote]What I've been speaking against is striking children to change their behavior.

From w ...[text shortened]... based on your response. Hardly makes sense for you to try to claim that they aren't relevant.[/b]

Ok, but could you offer a response to my questions?

My response would be:

1. No you don't have any such evidence. The fact that you have ducked this point more than once speaks volumes.

2. Yes, it is natural to assume that the severity, duration and frequency of the physical activity may have a bearing on its short, medium and long term effects. In fact, it is wholly illogical and against all human experience to conclude otherwise unless you can prove differently. Thrashing a child with a cane on a daily basis is likely to have profoundly different effects to the occasional mild slap on the bottom.

So, you have no evidence to support your criticism of others' use of mild forms of striking of a child but continue to draw illogical and definitive conclusions from evidence that does not address this type of activity.

This does not, of course, mean you are wrong to advocate the complete non-use of any level of physical restraint/force against a child. In fact it is ironic that, as a matter of practice, I am actually on your side, and do not use these techniques, though i have acknowledged that I might do in certain limited circumstances, which again are not addressed by your evidence,

But you should accept that the evidence you have cited does not, in fact, prove your contention that all forms of physical restraint/force are harmful, and look for better ones to support it, if you have them.

You should also not be so quick to label people's views ignorant and wrongheaded for not accepting your absolutist stance when you cannot support them with any relevant and reliable evidence.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sure, I'm up for it.

I would think the best thing you could do to help me out is to state how the reference from which you pasted those excerpts explicitly defines 'corporal punishment'. If you do that, then I think surely it should be clear whether or not those excerpts provide argumentative fuel against a position like bbarr's position on what counts as justifiable child-swatting.

Actually, I was thinking a different approach is called for. From what I can tell, you've approached the text from a perspective which has lead you to a very different understanding of the pasted text than what I believe was intended by the author. I'm thinking that it would be better to give you a different perspective to consider - which is the 'bit of groundwork' that I alluded to earlier. Hopefully I'll be able to convey what I see.

Let's begin with a couple of terms referred to in the text: "violence" and "spank".

For "violence" I see the following meaning from my dictionary at home:
"swift and intense force".
I have no reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author. For example, in the following text there are no references to physical force at all, no less "swift and intense force".

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

I have no reason to believe that "swatting" would be included in this list.


For "spank" I see the following definition provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics:
"Spanking, as discussed here, refers to striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without causing physical injury."
I have no reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author. I have no reason to believe that "swatting" (which I see as a euphemism for "spanking" ) would not be included in references to "spanking".

This seems like a good place to allow you to comment and question.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Ok, but could you offer a response to my questions?

My response would be:

1. No you don't have any such evidence. The fact that you have ducked this point more than once speaks volumes.

2. Yes, it is natural to assume that the severity, duration and frequency of the physical activity may have a bearing on its short, medium and long term effect your absolutist stance when you cannot support them with any relevant and reliable evidence.

Let's see, first you accused me of asking "questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed" as a prelude to you doing just that.

Now it seems that you've taken it upon yourself to answer those questions for me. And it seems you took the further step of drawing conclusions based on those answers and making misrepresentations of my position to boot. Wow.

I suspect that you're really too emotionally charged to engage in a rational discussion based upon this and some of your earlier posts.

Why don't you look in on my discussion with LJ? I'm thinking you'll benefit from it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually, I was thinking a different approach is called for. From what I can tell, you've approached the text from a perspective which has lead you to a very different understanding of the pasted text than what I believe was intended by the author. I'm thinking that it would be better to give you a different perspective to consider - which is the 'bit of ...[text shortened]... is seems like a good place to allow you to comment and question.

LJ asks the perfectly reasonable question of how a key term in the debate was defined. You again duck the question. Presumably because, as bbar pointed out, in some cases, the research you cite does not even bother to define the term. Analyses which use potentially such broad terms such as corporal punishment without defining it are either a) very sloppy or b) not really interested in exploring the issue in a rigorous way.

The idea that you can conclude that the type of swatting that is being referred to is synonymous with the spanking being addressed in these studies is too silly for words.