Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Paidiske]

But its not the cause of the problem. You have not shown that and we can say its a correlation just like you claims family setup was.

Except that there is a causative link between people believing abuse is acceptable, and them abusing.

Look at Carl Emerson's post just above. He believes caning young folk is acceptable; he would be willing to see it done. There we see the way attitudes cause behaviour.

There is no one single cause to child abuse.

When you boil it right down, yes there is. And that's the willingness of adults to abuse. Without that; no abuse.

Like I said people can believe abuse is wrong and still abuse.

I've asked you for evidence of this, and you haven't supplied any. Barring something like pretty extreme psychosis, which is nowhere near as prevalent as physical abuse of children, I don't believe this at all.

Why do you think they talk about the Risk and Protective factors of child abuse. Why some situations are more conducive for abuse. Why do you think within those risk factor categories there are certain people. Its certainly not because of their beliefs about abuse.

Those risk factors might affect the situations in which people who fundamentally believe abuse is acceptable, actually do abuse. But they don't cause the abuse. Abuse is chosen behaviour. It's not something that "just happens" when the circumstances arise.

Just as, to create an analogy, there might be particular situations in which someone is more likely to drink to excess, but those situations don't cause the drinking. It's the choice of the person to drink.

Thats unless you want to say that those people who happen to have coexisting issues like being abused themselves, being single mothers, being non biological partners just happen to be the same groups that believe abuse is ok. But then why is it that those who happen to believe abuse is ok also happen to have all these coexisting risk factors.

It makes sense to me that people who've been abused might have normalised that abuse in their own minds. As for the rest, see above; the situation might make them more likely to act on that belief, but the situation doesn't cause the behaviour.

Yes and determining whether parents can parent in non abusive ways is determining the Risk and Protective factors and then targeting those groups with support

And the groups assessed as low risk, they're just ignored? That approach, the way you want to do it, would see abuse in "traditional" families fly completely under the radar.

Yes it will. Its even used as a measure and approach in present child abuse intervention supports.

Really? What, so you help an abusive single parent find a partner, without addressing any other issues, and you reckon that prevents further abuse? That's a successful intervention?

I don't believe that for one second. Nor do I believe that child abuse intervention includes matchmaking for single parents.

Yes thats true but it is about family structure as well.

If healthy or abusive parenting can happen in any family structure, then it's not about the family structure. As I said upthread, at best that becomes a population-level statistical indicator of some other possible factors in play. Which is pretty meaningless in individual cases.

No that is one of the strengths of the studies is that it consistently shows certain family structure have much higher risk.

But they don't even consistently measure what you're referring to as a "traditional" family, which is what I was pointing out.

The more factors that point to risk of child abuse the stronger the link for it being an important causal factor.

For the umpteenth time, correlation is not causation... until you demonstrate that you actually understand that, we're probably going to keep going in circles on this.

There is no clear way to show a definite causal connection with any single factor including parents attitudes and beliefs.

Of course there is. But claiming that there isn't would get you off the hook for demonstrating it with the things you want to claim.

The best that can be done is to assess the Risk and Protective factors.

No, we can do much better than that. We do it with other forms of abuse, why would we refuse to do it for this one?

For example single parents are more likely to be poor and poverty is associated with hightened risk of abuse. Single parenthood is associated with higher rates of psychological stress which is also associated with higher risks. Single parents who have experienced childhood abuse have a hieghtened risk of child abuse and there are several other indepenent evidence of hightened risk and single parents. Adding these together gives more strength to this being a cause of child abuse.

All you are doing here is demonstrating that actually, it's not about singleness at all. That singleness correlates with other factors which may contribute to someone's choices. But singleness isn't what causes someone to abuse.

Altogether this builds the evdience that certain family structures can have a higher risk of causing child abuse.

Higher prevalence, yes. But it's not the cause. Those are two different things.

So why would Government agencies, Justice and Family Wellbeing advocates and support organisations include these measures if they were irrelevant to preventing child abuse.

What I just said is exactly why. It's a population-level statistical indicator of potential abuse, and therefore it makes sense for government agencies with limited resources to direct those resources accordingly. But what I don't see, in the literature around intervention and prevention programmes, from the government or private organisations, is any mention of trying to get single parents partnered up to reduce their risk of abusing; at most it's one thing taken into account when assessing what supports a household has.

And being a statistical indicator is not the same as being the cause of abuse. And when it comes to prevention, it's really important not to overlook abuse that happens in all household types, including the ones that don't meet the statistical stereotype.

 

[stevevw]

How is that even a question? Of course it's a good thing.

I meant is it a good or bad thing if corporal punishment is not always abusive. Banning it seems unfair to those who don't abuse and find corporal punishment helpful.

It's not necessary. If outlawing corporal punishment is what it takes to deal with abuse, that's still a win.

How do you know its not necessary. It seems to me since outlawing CP in schools student behaviour has become out of control with students now defying teachings, assualting them and many teachers quitting because they cannot cope with student behaviour.

What if measured CP is an important factor for controlling behaviour, outlawing it would not be a win.

Doubt it.

Doubt it. Once again this doesn't sound too confident.

There's a vast gulf between "not profoundly damaging," and "necessary."

But a blanket ban will assume non abusive CP is just as bad as profoundly damaging. It will deny the rights of those who believe its an important part of diciplining children. Like I said there is evdience thats it can be beneficial in certain situations especially as a last resort and where there are difficult behavioural problems.

It's true that attitudes which normalise abuse are common across cultures. That doesn't mean they don't exist and can't be challenged, though.

Yes of course but belief is not the only cause or even the major cause. Thats why I say we need to look at the Risk and Protective factors because they can highlight the exact or biggest causes by homing in on the converging risks across a wide range of influences rather than the one dimensional view of belief only.

We have become much more aware of how child abuse is wrong and unhealthy for kids. Certainly more aware than 20 years ago. Yet in those 20 odd years abuse has increased as mentioned.

This has nothing to do with the physical abuse of children.

Yes it does because it shows that the same irrational behaviour for other abuse, violent crime and things that hurt family like addiction has the same psychological basis for child abuse. For example someone who kills another usually does not believe that murder is good. Yet they still murder against their better judgement. They have lost control and acted out often out of anger and violence.

You might think so, but plenty of people hold beliefs which allow them to rationalise abuse.

Yes they rationalize it in their own crazy away. Rationalising something crazy is is rational. You can rationalise anything to be ok but when exposed to reality, to the facts its irrational.

LIke I said unless your a psychopath most people feel guilty, are remorceful for abusing a child which shows they actually believed it was wrong.

With the physical abuse of children? Not so much. They tell themselves it's necessary discipline. That it's important to form the character of the child. That God told us to "spare the rod" and so on. They really believe they're doing something right and necessary.

Yes but your conflating abuse with measured corporal punishment. None of those parents go in believing the devastating harm they inflict. No parent says I believe a fractured skull or broken arm is what God meant. They believe that measured discipline is ok not abusive dicipline.

Its because of other factors that people go overboard, lose control and go beyond controlled dicipline. Stress, previous abuse, psychological disorders, poverty, lack of support all play a role in accumulating things that cause people to lose control.

 

[stevevw]

Except that there is a causative link between people believing abuse is acceptable, and them abusing.

Look at Carl Emerson's post just above. He believes caning young folk is acceptable; he would be willing to see it done. There we see the way attitudes cause behaviour.

Yes but your conflating abuse with non abuse. You haven't even defined what that abuse is and are assuming that giving a measured smack on the backside or the cane for older youth is abuse. Measured dicipline by the cane may be a good form of dicipline that helps manage behaviour. Parents smacking a child may be a beneficial form of dicipline. Non religious people also abuse who may not believe in abuse.

Your also assuming that everyone who says they believe in harsh dicipline actually go ahead with it (I don't want to call it abusive because the line is not clear). Just like capital punishment people say the believe in these things but actually don't go along when it comes to the crunch, reality.

When you boil it right down, yes there is. And that's the willingness of adults to abuse. Without that; no abuse.

I have already shown its just one of a number of factors where none is a singular cause. Its the weight of a number of risk factors that lead to abuse.

I've asked you for evidence of this, and you haven't supplied any. Barring something like pretty extreme psychosis, which is nowhere near as prevalent as physical abuse of children, I don't believe this at all.

This logic can be used to show belief is not the cause. Not everyone who believes in corporal punishment abuse. They don't lose control and don't abuse.

A survey in the US in 2012 showed that More than 70% of Americans agreed in 2012 that, “it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking.”

Hitting kids: American parenting and physical punishment | Brookings

When Minnesota Vikings’ running back Adrian Peterson was indicted for hitting his son with a ‘switch’ in September 2014, there was a public furor – with arguments on both sides, but a general sense that Peterson was in the wrong.[i] Quickly, however, the debate over corporal punishment, which...

www.brookings.edu

So more than 70% of people believed inflicting pain on a child as a diciplinary measure was ok. Yet strangly enough we didn't see a 70% epidemic rise in child abuse in those families.

Funny enough though we did see a dramatic rise in child abuse in certain family setups regardless of belief.

Those risk factors might affect the situations in which people who fundamentally believe abuse is acceptable, actually do abuse. But they don't cause the abuse. Abuse is chosen behaviour. It's not something that "just happens" when the circumstances arise.

Have you got support for this. But the logic would mean if the risk factors cause those who believe in physical abuse to abuse then its the risk factors that are pushing them to abuse. If the risk factors were not there then they don't abuse. That means for those who believe and have no risk factors don't abuse and belief is only a small part because it was the risk factors that actually pushed them over the line to abuse.

Just as, to create an analogy, there might be particular situations in which someone is more likely to drink to excess, but those situations don't cause the drinking. It's the choice of the person to drink.

No its not. You have no knowledge of addiction. I have worked with addiction for years. Once they take the first drink they cannot stop. There are underlying psychological and trauma that cause them to drink to excess. An addictive personality you could say or a propensity to drink to excess.

It makes sense to me that people who've been abused might have normalised that abuse in their own minds. As for the rest, see above; the situation might make them more likely to act on that belief, but the situation doesn't cause the behaviour.

I think you have this all wrong. Your putting all your eggs in one basket and are now trying to defend things that are not just the case. No your making out that the most volnurable have the same capicity to make choices as those who are well adjusted.

Like its now a moral issue of character for them rasther than what they have excperienced which has effected their ability to make choices. I would have though you were big on mitigating circumstances, defending the disadvantaged who may not have the same advantages of others..

And the groups assessed as low risk, they're just ignored? That approach, the way you want to do it, would see abuse in "traditional" families fly completely under the radar.

No but first off if they are low or no risk then they are not abusing, like I said 70% of TF have no abuse at all. But as mentioned its a multipronged approach. The first and foremost is obviously the high risk groups which we target for support.

Then we look at the community wide approaches encouraging good parenting and no abuse such as laws, awareness and family support to avoid those no risk groups becoming risk groups. That includes all family types including TF. But budgeting concerns limit our supports so targeting high risk groups should be the number 1 priority because we know abuse actually is happening now.

Really? What, so you help an abusive single parent find a partner, without addressing any other issues, and you reckon that prevents further abuse? That's a successful intervention?
I don't believe that for one second. Nor do I believe that child abuse intervention includes matchmaking for single parents.

Your good at misrepresenting what I said. I never said any such thing. I am talking about getting fathers involved regardless of whether they want to get back together. But as a result of such programs one of the off shoot benefits is that some parents get back together.

Research shows even seperated fathers increased involvement helps prevent abuse. There are many government programs encouraging dads to get involved regadless of their partner status and in fact have been the more sucessful ones.

The we can have community wide support as well and encourage better fathers and mothers, stronger marriages or relationships, commitment, understand the responsibility of having kids and the importance of both parents and support stronger families which will all go towards reducing abuse.

If healthy or abusive parenting can happen in any family structure, then it's not about the family structure. As I said upthread, at best that becomes a population-level statistical indicator of some other possible factors in play. Which is pretty meaningless in individual cases.

AS I said its a mattter of degrees of risk. The greater the risk, the more variables that converge on that association the more it becomes central and a cause. This shows some setups are often not conducive of healthy environments and others are. We do this for all health and wellbeing issues. Why are you denying it for child abuse.

We say drinking can be a risk factor for DV and we advertised about safe drinking in relation to DV. We say lower socioeconomic status is linked to higher risk of certain outcomes and we base our support on that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Look at Carl Emerson's post just above. He believes caning young folk is acceptable; he would be willing to see it done. There we see the way attitudes cause behaviour.

On the contrary the Bible supports appropriate punishments (not abuse) and to depart from this wisdom for some 'new thought' approach does not serve society well.

When abuse does occur - deal with it with strict measures - don't abandon a biblically sanctioned form of discipline.

Yes, attitudes cause behaviour and the legislation against biblical principle in this case has been a disaster.

Have your 'new thought' schools without physical discipline if you insist, and allow folks to attend or not.

Don't force unbiblical measures by law.

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

 

[Robban]

On the contrary the Bible supports appropriate punishments (not abuse) and to depart from this wisdom for some 'new thought' approach does not serve society well.

When abuse does occur - deal with it with strict measures - don't abandon a biblically sanctioned form of discipline.

Yes, attitudes cause behaviour and the legislation against biblical principle in this case has been a disaster.

Have your 'new thought' schools without physical discipline if you insist, and allow folks to attend or not.

Don't force unbiblical measures by law.

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

Ever thought of re-saddling in life,

you know and become a ringmaster at a cirkus,

cracking a whip and make animals jump through hoops?

 

[timothyu]

Like schools, employers and governments?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Ever thought of re-saddling in life,

you know and become a ringmaster at a cirkus,

cracking a whip and make animals jump through hoops?

Sorry, I don't get your point...

Can you expand a bit ?

 

[Paidiske]

I meant is it a good or bad thing if corporal punishment is not always abusive. Banning it seems unfair to those who don't abuse and find corporal punishment helpful.

This comes across to me as being similar to complaining about the law requiring you to wear a seatbelt even though not everyone drives dangerously. But we require it anyway because by banning some behaviour that wouldn't result in injury, we prevent many injuries.

I still say, of course that's a good thing.

It seems to me since outlawing CP in schools student behaviour has become out of control with students now defying teachings, assualting them and many teachers quitting because they cannot cope with student behaviour.

Really? And nothing else has changed? How do the schools who don't have these problems, but don't use corporal punishment, manage?

What if measured CP is an important factor for controlling behaviour,

You'd need a lot of evidence for such a claim, and I doubt you'll find it.

Doubt it. Once again this doesn't sound too confident.

I'm highly confident. I'm the one who's lived through what you're advocating for, remember?

But a blanket ban will assume non abusive CP is just as bad as profoundly damaging.

So is the real problem you have in this conversation that you're concerned that we might lose non-abusive corporal punishment? Is that so important to you that we must tolerate a certain level of abuse so that you can continue to enjoy it?

It will deny the rights of those who believe its an important part of diciplining children.

Like I said, nobody has an inalienable right to use corporal punishment. Certainly not more right than the children have to not be abused.

Yes of course but belief is not the only cause or even the major cause.

You haven't demonstrated that any of the other things you want to claim cause abuse, actually do.

Yes it does because it shows that the same irrational behaviour for other abuse, violent crime and things that hurt family like addiction has the same psychological basis for child abuse.

No, it doesn't show anything of the kind.

Yes they rationalize it in their own crazy away. Rationalising something crazy is is rational. You can rationalise anything to be ok but when exposed to reality, to the facts its irrational.

And this is why teaching parents about the harms of abuse is so important; it helps to deconstruct those rationalisations.

LIke I said unless your a psychopath most people feel guilty, are remorceful for abusing a child which shows they actually believed it was wrong.

Evidence, please.

Yes but your conflating abuse with measured corporal punishment.

No, I was speaking of clearly and unambiguously abusive behaviour.

No parent says I believe a fractured skull or broken arm is what God meant. They believe that measured discipline is ok not abusive dicipline.

But plenty of parents believe massive bruises and welts, and so on, are within "measured discipline." You don't have to break a bone to be abusive.

Its because of other factors that people go overboard, lose control and go beyond controlled dicipline.

No, it really isn't. It's not about loss of control at all. And if you want to keep claiming it is, I'll ask you again for evidence.

You haven't even defined what that abuse is

Several times I have given you what would generally be considered reportable abuse in Australia; hitting more than six times, hitting with an implement other than the hand, hitting hard enough to leave marks.

and are assuming that giving a measured smack on the backside or the cane for older youth is abuse.

A single measured smack? No. The cane, yes.

Measured dicipline by the cane may be a good form of dicipline that helps manage behaviour.

Ah. Here we get right down to it. You want to advocate for actually abusive behaviour. If you want to advocate for caning, then say so clearly now, and our conversation will be at an end. There's nowhere to go when you're actually promoting abuse.

Non religious people also abuse who may not believe in abuse.

It's not about religion. It's about beliefs about what is good and necessary parenting.

Your also assuming that everyone who says they believe in harsh dicipline actually go ahead with it (I don't want to call it abusive because the line is not clear).

No. I am claiming - not assuming - that people who actually abuse, have beliefs about discipline which validate that abuse.

I have already shown its just one of a number of factors where none is a singular cause.

No, you haven't. Most of the things you've claimed as causes aren't causes at all.

So more than 70% of people believed inflicting pain on a child as a diciplinary measure was ok. Yet strangly enough we didn't see a 70% epidemic rise in child abuse in those families.

But can you find a cohort of actually abusive parents who didn't believe they had a right to do what they did?

Have you got support for this.

Some, although most of the research is to do with other forms of abuse. There has been surprisingly little similar research around physical abuse of children. I see no reason why it would be less true for this form of abuse, than for others, though.

But the logic would mean if the risk factors cause those who believe in physical abuse to abuse then its the risk factors that are pushing them to abuse.

Again, not "cause." Being single doesn't make someone beat their child black and blue. Nor does not having money. Again, abuse doesn't "just happen." It's chosen behaviour.

If the risk factors were not there then they don't abuse.

Untrue! There is lots of abuse in households that don't have those risk factors. That's what I keep trying to get through to you.

No its not. You have no knowledge of addiction.

I am not speaking of an addict, but a person without addiction.

I think you have this all wrong.

And I think you have it all wrong, so...

No your making out that the most volnurable have the same capicity to make choices as those who are well adjusted.

That might be over-stating my case somewhat. I am arguing that abuse happens, in the vast majority of cases, because people choose to do it.

Like its now a moral issue of character for them rasther than what they have excperienced which has effected their ability to make choices.

I wouldn't put it quite like that; it's generally done out of ignorance rather than bad character. But I absolutely don't see abuse as arising out of impaired ability to make choices.

No but first off if they are low or no risk then they are not abusing,

No, sorry, that's exactly the problem with your whole argument. There are plenty of "low risk" "traditional" households in which abuse is flourishing. There's no such thing as "no risk."

I am talking about getting fathers involved regardless of whether they want to get back together.

That's not actually going to change the household structure, then, is it? It's almost as if household structure is actually beside the point...

We do this for all health and wellbeing issues. Why are you denying it for child abuse.

Because it would leave so much child abuse completely overlooked and ignored. I don't think that's good enough.

On the contrary the Bible supports appropriate punishments (not abuse)

I'm sorry, Carl, but caning someone is not appropriate punishment, and is abusive. And here's the thing; parenting without caning is not unbiblical. The verse you're so fond of quoting is not a command, and is not binding on us.

 

[Robban]

Sorry, I don't get your point...

Can you expand a bit ?

Your posts give the impression you would be good at it.

I cannot find a word to describe the picture it paints in my mind.

As I said in our family no one raised a hand against any of us.

It does not mean there was no order, more not wanting to

displease our parents they were hard times and we had a need to

help best we could.

Something that caught my was a line in a Psalm,
(And He took David His servant and took him from the sheep coralls from following the nursing ewes)

I found that a little odd, so started to dig and found;


Because he was merciful and would bring the kids first and feed them the upper tips of the grasses, which are tender.

Then after he would bring out he-goats, who would eat the middle of the grasses.

And afterwards he would bring out the older ones, who would eat the roots.

Said the Holy one blessed be He;
"This one is fit to shepherd my people."

Food for thought.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'm sorry, Carl, but caning someone is not appropriate punishment, and is abusive. And here's the thing; parenting without caning is not unbiblical. The verse you're so fond of quoting is not a command, and is not binding on us.

I appreciate your opinion...

For some of us the Bible is a mirror for accountability.

For others a text to be interpreted.

The context of my comment presented was a public school - parents had a choice to send their children there or not.

Your claim that what the bible recommends is abusive would seem to indicate you place your judgement over His if we believe in divine inspiration.

 

[Paidiske]

You claim that what the bible recommends is abusive

I claim that there are ways to read the particular verses you're referring to without seeing them as recommending abuse. And beating a child with a rod is abusive.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Your posts give the impression you would be good at it.

I cannot find a word to describe the picture it paints in my mind.

As I said in our family no one raised a hand against any of us.

It does not mean there was no order, more not wanting to

displease our parents they were hard times and we had a need to

help best we could.

Something that caught my was a line in a Psalm,
(And He took David His servant and took him from the sheep coralls from following the nursing ewes)

I found that a little odd, so started to dig and found;


Because he was merciful and would bring the kids first and feed them the upper tips of the grasses, which are tender.

Then after he would bring out he-goats, who would eat the middle of the grasses.

And afterwards he would bring out the older ones, who would eat the roots.

Said the Holy one blessed be He;
"This one is fit to shepherd my people."

Food for thought.

Yes the shepherd tends the flock with compassion, but also deals with the wild animals that might harm them.

By the way I appreciate that your family had no need to use such measures - the context is at school where pupils are often wont to abuse the teachers, steal, and harm other pupils.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I claim that there are ways to read the particular verses you're referring to without seeing them as recommending abuse. And beating a child with a rod is abusive.

Yes I hear your opinion - but that is not what the text plainly says.

I repeat the text so the reader can decide...

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

Comments from other members on the text would be most welcome.

 

[Robban]

Yes the shepherd tends the flock with compassion, but also deals with the wild animals that might harm them.

By the way I appreciate that your family had no need to use such measures - the context is at school where pupils are often wont to abuse the teachers, steal, and harm other pupils.

Well, I tell you I do not know the solution.

I do want to give the impression that I am some kind of goody goody, because I am not.

Only by the grace of God
,in all things I suspect.

 

[stevevw]

This comes across to me as being similar to complaining about the law requiring you to wear a seatbelt even though not everyone drives dangerously. But we require it anyway because by banning some behaviour that wouldn't result in injury, we prevent many injuries.

I still say, of course that's a good thing.

No really because seat belts are also because other drivers don't always drive safely and could cause an accident. But notice that its based on the risk factor ie seatbelts prevent loss of lives.

Really? And nothing else has changed? How do the schools who don't have these problems, but don't use corporal punishment, manage?

Possibly a combination of better behaved students and a good structure (culture) at the school which prevents students acting out in the first place. Corporal punishment is a last resort and often works best with difficult kids or students.

When there is no culture that encourages good and respectful behaviour and no proper dicipline thats when things get out of hand. Thats why there is a growing problem not a decreasing problem with student behaviour. So something is wrong with how we dicipline but also with the culture we create in some schools where it seems students can get away with bad behaviour. The soft approach is not working.

You'd need a lot of evidence for such a claim, and I doubt you'll find it.

As you wanted to refer to Australia then corporal punishment is still legal and we don't have any worse problems than nations who do have corporal punishment. In fact it may even be a bit better behaviour than other western nations like the US and Britain. But here ar

I'm highly confident. I'm the one who's lived through what you're advocating for, remember?

Yes but isn't that being biased as you are speaking from experience and that is not everyones experience. Parents have used corporal punishments without any abuse or bad effects and in fact some evdience shows its beneficial. If Australia is not banning CP then there must be some basis for it being ok for some parents.

Smacking study hits at claims of harm
The project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand.
Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement. "Study members in the 'smacking only' category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,"

Smacking study hits at claims of harm - NZ Herald

Get the latest local and breaking news, updates, opinion and insights from across New Zealand. News worth knowing - NZ Herald - your source for NZ news.

www.nzherald.co.nz

All eight studies, including four randomised clinical trials, found that nonabusive smacking benefited children when it backed up milder disciplinary tactics with children aged 2 to 6 years.

Child discipline: Weak evidence for a smacking ban - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

‘Studies show that, for children with behavioural problems, using a smack on the bottom as a back-up to other methods – such as a time-out away from fun activities – is twice as effective at resolving difficult behaviour compared with non-physical discipline alone. A body of evidence shows smacking is effective for particularly defiant children.

Is smacking your child tantamount to child abuse?

Two of the UK's leading children's charities, the NSPCC and Barnardo's, had called on Ministers to bring England in line with Wales and Scotland, by making illegal any physical punishment of children.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Corporal punishment is an effective form of discipline both in the home and in the school. It is important to punish juveniles in a swift and effective way that teaches a firm lesson to the child to not repeat that similar behavior.

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=clrj#:~:text=Corporal%20punishment%20is%20an%20effective%20form%20of%20discipline%20both%20in,not%20repeat%20that%20similar%20behavior.

So is the real problem you have in this conversation that you're concerned that we might lose non-abusive corporal punishment? Is that so important to you that we must tolerate a certain level of abuse so that you can continue to enjoy it?

No my concern is that the State is trying to socially engineer society with their ideology and not the facts and telling parents whats good or bad for our kids. We have already seen this happening with issues like gender, race and sex as well as policies that devalue parents and the family.

If coroporal punishment is a useful way of controlling kids behaviour especially for difficult kids and even has benefits according the the research then it denies many good parents with a dicipline method that has been helpful and forces them to conform to the States ideology and not their own. Parental rights in how they bring up their kids is a fundemental rights which should not be denied and when denied will cause problems.

Like I said, nobody has an inalienable right to use corporal punishment. Certainly not more right than the children have to not be abused.

But parents have a human and in many cases consitutional right to bring up their children in the way they believe is right without State interference. If as the evdience shows corporal punishment is not abuse is measured and within a framewwwork of dicipline and even beneficial then there is no abuse and the State is denying parents their rights by enforcing their ideology onto parents.

You haven't demonstrated that any of the other things you want to claim cause abuse, actually do.

I could say either have you. You keep insisting that family structure is not a cause but neither is belief. So no single reason can be determined as a cause. So the next best thing to do is to determine the strong associations and direct impacts and the more we find the stronger the case for family structure being a cause.

At the very least its a high risk factor and it seems all child welfare issues and solutions are based on the risk and protective factors which clearly show certain family structures are more likely to lead to abse. Whats more programs that include engaging parents and fathers are used to combat child outcomes including abuse. So child agencies are already agreeing its important.

No, it doesn't show anything of the kind.

So your saying a person with addiction has the same control as someone without addiction. Addiction is a form of insanity in that people do the same destructive behaviour over and over thinking that there will be a different outcome. Thats irrational.

And this is why teaching parents about the harms of abuse is so important; it helps to deconstruct those rationalisations.

The problem is its not about more knowledge or awareness. They know its irrational but still do it. Its more a case of addressing their underlying mental disorders so their thinking changes. Using cognative behavioural therapy for example to expose the irrational thinking with rational thinking.

Evidence, please.

Its basic common sense about human nature. People say and do hurtful things in the heat of the moment and pretty well regret it soon after. As much of abusive corporal punishment is done with hightened emotions such as anger they are acting out of that emotion rather than their rational selves. So after the heat dies down they realize and usually try to make it up in some way. Then the cycle repeats.

The mix of shame and regret that often comes after the rage has cooled is a toxic brew for you to be consuming over and over again too. “Whether it’s setting boundaries with a family member our anger is often the fuel. Learning to stop taking your anger out on loved ones requires getting way more familiar with your inner emotional landscape and how it drives what you do and say. Dr. Bobby calls this “emotional-regulation skills training.” “Many people who get lash-y aren’t really connected to their feelings,”

How to Stop Taking Your Anger Out on the People You Love the Most

It’s about getting VERY familiar with your feelings.

www.self.com

Something happens that you really don’t like. You automatically react in anger. Your reaction provokes a response. Before you know it, you are speaking and behaving in ways that you will later regret. In fact, the guilt will be overwhelming. Uncontrolled anger may result in: Passive-aggressive behaviors like sarcasm and ridicule, Abusive behaviors (verbal, emotional, or physical cruelty), Turning our rage inward to experience guilt, shame, resentment, and even depression

Uncontrolled Anger and the Guilt That Follows: How Anger Management Helps

This article explores 5 Ways Anger Management Helps with Uncontrolled Anger (and Guilt). Your anger management therapist will help you better understand your uncontrolled anger.

www.mindnbodhi.com

No, I was speaking of clearly and unambiguously abusive behaviour.

My point was that people can tell themselves it's necessary discipline. That it's important to form the character of the child. That God told us to "spare the rod" and so on and not abuse. So no belief in corporal punishment doesn't necessarily lead to abuse.

But plenty of parents believe massive bruises and welts, and so on, are within "measured discipline." You don't have to break a bone to be abusive.

Do they really. I think they try to tell themselves this. But I think everytime they see those massive bruises and welts they get pangs of guilt. Any parent that doesn't must be a psychopath. There is an intrinsic bond between child and parents especially mothers who birthed them to protect their child. If that bond is broken then and the mother is justifying physical damage to her child then she cannot be in the right frame of mind.

No, it really isn't. It's not about loss of control at all. And if you want to keep claiming it is, I'll ask you again for evidence.

I just gave you a couple of links above talking about out of control anger. This is psychology 101.

Control anger before it controls you
When anger gets out of control and turns destructive, it can lead to problems.

Control anger before it controls you

Anger is a normal, healthy response to a threat and may be used for a constructive purpose. When anger becomes uncontrollable or is unexpressed, it may lead to destructive thoughts or actions. Learn how to control it.

www.apa.org

What to Know About Being Unable to Control Emotions
When people are unable to control their emotions, their responses may be disruptive or inappropriate given the situation or setting. Some people experience a constant inability to control their emotions because of a chronic condition.

What to Know About Being Unable to Control Emotions

A person who is unable to control their emotions often exhibits disruptive behavior.

www.healthline.com

Several times I have given you what would generally be considered reportable abuse in Australia; hitting more than six times, hitting with an implement other than the hand, hitting hard enough to leave marks.

Heres the problem as far as the universal understanding, the UN, Child advocates is that any corporal punishment is abuse. So using Australia's definition is not necessarily the definition of what is abuse. Thats the problem.

Even so is 7 light slaps abuse. If the parent forgets the count are they now guilty of abuse. If they use a wooden spoon but still smack lightly only once is that abuse. Even if there was a slight mark is that abuse. As far as I know the smacking can be applied to lower extremities. So if one light smack leaves a slight mark on the back of the thigh is that abuse.

A single measured smack? No. The cane, yes.

Who says though. Many got the cane and it did not cause problems, me being one. Some States in the US still allow corporal punishment in schools. They seem to think its ok.

Ah. Here we get right down to it. You want to advocate for actually abusive behaviour. If you want to advocate for caning, then say so clearly now, and our conversation will be at an end. There's nowhere to go when you're actually promoting abuse.

I'm not assuming either way but rather asking the questions and looking at the evidence. I don't think its that clear.

Corporal Punishment | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Education, Schools, Abuse, & Spanking | Britannica

Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools? Learn the pros and cons of the debate.

www.procon.org

It's not about religion. It's about beliefs about what is good and necessary parenting.

You used belief in Biblical teachings as a justification for corporal punishment and I was saying that this belief does not always lead to abuse.

No. I am claiming - not assuming - that people who actually abuse, have beliefs about discipline which validate that abuse.

But not all people do. Some have not even thought about it and just react. I have already supported this with evidence.

No, you haven't. Most of the things you've claimed as causes aren't causes at all.

I just said no single issue is a cause and its a combination of factors that create the perfect storm for abuse. Some of that is belief, some is family structure, some is poverty, mental illness, lack of support, psychological stress, uncontrolled emotions, outside factors like inviting a violitile boyfriend into the home. But a common factor with most of these issues is family structure.

But can you find a cohort of actually abusive parents who didn't believe they had a right to do what they did?

Why you said belief is the only causal factor. If 70% believed in inflicting some pain with corporal punishment is ok but there was not a 70% rise in child abuse then that in itself shows belief cannot be the motivating factor for abuse. Its the same thing it still shows belief is not the cause of abuse. I seem to provide the evdience and then you keep changing the goal posts.

Evenso the links I provided showing that people lose control because of hightened emotions then they are abusing because they have lost control of their emotions regardless of their beliefs. Thats unless you want to claim that only people who believe in CP lose control of their emotions which I think is unreal.

 

[Larniavc]

When and how to use it is key to teaching.

It is not ‘key’. It is a tool for people who are unwilling to use more appropriate tools to manage a child’s behaviour.

If one chooses corporal punishment when there are objectively better ways to manage a child’s behaviour one must ask why?

Research shows that corporal punishment is worse at managing the target behaviour and has long term negative effects. Why would anyone choose it?

And further; I could no sooner smack my son that I could cut my own leg off.

 

[Larniavc]

In my day children knew that certain behaviours were met with physical punishment.

And look at the state of society now.

 

[stevevw]

Some, although most of the research is to do with other forms of abuse. There has been surprisingly little similar research around physical abuse of children. I see no reason why it would be less true for this form of abuse, than for others, though.

Thats not evidence but your opinion. To say that all those who abuse must believe abuse is OK is unreal as it overlooks the other motivating factors which I have already shown evdience for. Evenso your using a correlation which you claim is not cause.

Again, not "cause." Being single doesn't make someone beat their child black and blue. Nor does not having money. Again, abuse doesn't "just happen." It's chosen behaviour.

Then why is there a much higher risk (5 to 8 times) for child abuse and 70 times for death by abuse in certain family structures. Its the increased risk that is the red flag in those situations. To say that a family structure that has poverty, increased stress, instability,

Untrue! There is lots of abuse in households that don't have those risk factors. That's what I keep trying to get through to you.

But that is a misrepresentation of what is actually happening. There is not lots of abuse in families that don't have the risk factors. 70% of TF that don't have those risk factors have no abuse at all. The 30% that do have abuse in TF have risk factors such as alcohol abuse, mental illness, relationship conflicts, come from lower economic status or been abused themselves as children ect. There will be some risk factors.

The same with certain other family setups except not only do they have these risk factors that some TF have but are compounded by additional risk factors such as the psychological stress and other problems that come with single parenting, the higher behavioural problems of their kids, the unpredictability of non biological partners who have less vested interest in the child, the instability of cohabitation, the trauma and psychological problems that come with divorce and broken families on parents and kids and the relational stress and conflicts that go with blended families.

To compound this many of these factors feed each other. So its when these issues combine that creates the higher risk for certain family setups and the more issues that combine the greater the risk. So its a matter of degrees of risk and protective factors. But certain family environments are conducive of risk on their own and its these we need to identify and give most attention.

I am not speaking of an addict, but a person without addiction.

So what if a parent does have addiction, does this compromise is ability to make rational choices about his kids. Addictions will even take the food money for the kids to feed their addiction.

But addiction is just the extreme side of addictive thinking. Anyone can think this way. Addiction is really an 'ill at ease' problem. Its the 'ism' in alcoholism that is the real problem and people can have the 'ism' without being an addict. They can act irrational in ways without drugs or alcohol.

That might be over-stating my case somewhat. I am arguing that abuse happens, in the vast majority of cases, because people choose to do it.

I don't think its overstating. It just seems to me that your placing such a high moral ground when its not as if people in these situations have the same advantages or experiences as those who have not experienced these things and have many disadvantages. I mean isn't that social justice recognising the disadvantages some have over others that prevent them from achieving the same status.

I wouldn't put it quite like that; it's generally done out of ignorance rather than bad character. But I absolutely don't see abuse as arising out of impaired ability to make choices.

Do you think if a women was abused and one day they attacked their partner that there may be mitigating circumstances. Can we blame all people in of lower socio economic status for not making the right choices in life to do better.

No, sorry, that's exactly the problem with your whole argument. There are plenty of "low risk" "traditional" households in which abuse is flourishing. There's no such thing as "no risk."

I stated that 70% of children in TF have low risk or no risk for abuse. This is backed by research.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 70 percent of children raised by both biological parents had been completely free from traumas, which the researchers called “adverse childhood events.” The traumas the researchers focused on were divorce or separation, death of a parent, incarceration of a parent, mental illness in the home, substance abuse in the home, domestic violence, child abuse, neighborhood violence, racial discrimination and poverty.

While 70 percent of children living with both biological parents had never experienced even one of those adverse events, 78.3 percent of those living with just one biological parent had experienced at least one of them, as had 81.2 percent of those living without either biological parent.
CDC study: Traditional, two-parent biological family the safest environment for children - LifeSite

That's not actually going to change the household structure, then, is it? It's almost as if household structure is actually beside the point...

Yes it is because a household or family is not the house you live in. Its the next best thing to not having a father in a childs life.

Because it would leave so much child abuse completely overlooked and ignored. I don't think that's good enough.

How is it leaving so much child abuse overlooked and ignored when its actually looking at the Risk and Protective factors of child abuse. That is the standard method of identifying and then preventing individuals and groups at risk of any wellbeing issue whether its abuse, decrimination, Human Rights. You can't know who is most effected unless you understand the risk factors. You can prevent abuse if you don't know the protective factors.

But I will tell you what actually can cause people and society to ignore and overlook child abuse. Its not acknowledging the greater risk certain situations lead to child abuse.

The new silence: family breakdown and child sexual abuse
The silence on the links between family structure and child sexual abuse is deafening. That the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs within family settings obscures a larger and more significant truth: Children living in non-traditional families are far more likely to be sexually abused. Despite the evidence in the academic literature being "legion" and social scientists "disagree[ing] about details but not essentials," when the facts about family structure and risk of child sexual abuse are highlighted, the issue receives scant attention.

The new silence: family breakdown and child sexual abuse

This report argues that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has a limited scope that is symptomatic of wider gaps and silences in the national conversation about child sexual abuse. Executive summary: The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child...

apo.org.au

The issues are not fully and frankly discussed in this country because the public discourse is self-censored, in effect, by politicians, academics, social service organisations, and the media in compliance with politically correct attitudes towards "family diversity", the socially "progressive" and "non-judgmental" fiction that says the traditional family is just one among many, and equally worthy, family forms. In hindsight, we are justifiably critical of the silences that in earlier times kept child sexual abuse a hidden problem. Yet a comparable silence exists today.
Abuse a bigger danger in non-traditional families - The Centre for Independent Studies

I'm sorry, Carl, but caning someone is not appropriate punishment, and is abusive. And here's the thing; parenting without caning is not unbiblical. The verse you're so fond of quoting is not a command, and is not binding on us.

OK while this is addressed to Carl and as your a Priest I would like to know what you view on the Bibles moral on corporal punishment. I say this not just with the Old Testament but also within the New Testament when it talks about Masters beating slaves who misbehaved.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And look at the state of society now.

Can you support you claim of a cause with some evidence?

 

[Paidiske]

Heres the problem as far as the universal understanding, the UN, Child advocates is that any corporal punishment is abuse. So using Australia's definition is not necessarily the definition of what is abuse. Thats the problem.

Even so is 7 light slaps abuse. If the parent forgets the count are they now guilty of abuse. If they use a wooden spoon but still smack lightly only once is that abuse. Even if there was a slight mark is that abuse. As far as I know the smacking can be applied to lower extremities. So if one light smack leaves a slight mark on the back of the thigh is that abuse.

Who says though. Many got the cane and it did not cause problems, me being one.

I think we're done with this part of the conversation. There's absolutely no point quibbling about prevention of abuse, when you deny and obfuscate that clearly abusive behaviour is abuse, and are more concerned with possible government overreach than actually protecting children.

OK while this is addressed to Carl and as your a Priest I would like to know what you view on the Bibles moral on corporal punishment. I say this not just with the Old Testament but also within the New Testament when it talks about Masters beating slaves who misbehaved.

I take it you are referring to Jesus' parables; they are parables, told to make a point, and that point was not "beating is good!"

I think in many ways the Bible reflects the social norms of its culture and times (which is why, for example, in the New Testament slavery itself isn't made a significant issue). But the Bible gives us principles - loving our neighbour as ourselves; relating with one another with love, peace, kindness, gentleness, and so on, for example - which would mean that corporal punishment, except, perhaps at an extremely minimal end for exceptional circumstances with young children, has no place in the life of Christians.

In fact, one of those parables is quite illustrative:

"And the Lord said, ‘Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, “My master is delayed in coming”, and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

Notice here that the one given authority, who misuses that authority to "beat" others, is considered blameworthy, and held accountable.