Corporal Punishment

Tom White · Apr 17, 2013

Mling said:
I've pretty much left Christianforums for all but occasional lurking when I'm bored, but I think that's a really interesting question, so I guess I'll pop back in for a moment.

The conventional wisdom is that children can't give meaningful consent because they're so vulnerable to psychological pressure and so inexperienced/uneducated about life in general.

I disagree with the idea that kids are *incapable* of meaningful consent, but, I do think that it's important to keep their vulnerability in mind and make absolutely certain that their "yes" is real consent.

So, a quick refresher on what consent is is in order: consent means willingly saying yes when saying no feels like a real and safe option. It's not consent if a parent says, "you know you deserve a spanking, right?" and they say "yes." If they have any idea at all that they *could* answer no to that, they're still almost certainly saying yes just because they think they'll get worse if they say no. Agreeing to something because you're afraid of what somebody will do to you if you refuse is *not* consent. Caving under pressure is not consent.

So what is? Here's what I would consider meaningful consent from a child in this case: they either came up with the idea of spanking by themself, or (more likely) they heard about it in a fairly neutral way like reading about it in a book or hearing about it from a friend. Then, on their own, without any outside pressure, they decide, "yeah, I want that.". Then they either ask an adult outright or try to lead an adult toward the idea--do and say things that cause the adult to ask "do you want me to spank you?" (Sincerely, not as a threat) to which they answer "yes."

So, that's not a very likely situation, but it's definitely not impossible. I've even heard of it happening, and I can think of a few different reasons why a kid would actually *want* to get spanked. They're all really different, though, and I think they should be handled in different ways.

What sort of scenario did you have in mind? Why does this kid want it?

Suppose they've been persuaded to believe that God demands their submission to their parents, including their parents right to spank them, under threat of eternal punishment. Therefore, they obey God.

In a free society, we allow freedom to persuade others of ideas - including religious ones - and freedom of choice. We do not allow coercion, but we do allow freedom of speech. To deny this is to deny a human right, and it is what separates us from statist regimes where the expression of ideas is restricted in favour of some collectivist political/moral ideology.

Mling · Apr 17, 2013

Tom White said:
Suppose they've been persuaded to believe that God demands their submission to their parents, including their parents right to spank them, under threat of eternal punishment. Therefore, they obey God.

In a free society, we allow freedom to persuade others of ideas - including religious ones - and freedom of choice. We do not allow coercion, but we do allow freedom of speech. To deny this is to deny a human right, and it is what separates us from statist regimes where the expression of ideas is restricted in favour of some collectivist political/moral ideology.

Being persuaded that a thing is true and right and good still involves actively embracing the idea yourself. What you're describing is still, "I *have* to do this because everybody says I have to. Even Pastor said I have to--he said that *God* says I have to. If I don't accept this, I'll get worse from God." That's not persuasion--it's still buckling under pressure. It's the difference between a person signing a consent form for surgery because the doctor showed them some statistics and information about their condition and clearly showed that it was good for them vs signing the form because the doctor said, "You need this surgery. Sign here. Why? Because. I'm your doctor and I know what's best for you. Why? BECAUSE YOU'LL DIE! SIGN HERE OR YOU WILL DIE!!!!"

the first is consent. The second is not.

EDIT: Also, it's pretty disingenuous to talk about kids being "persuaded" as if children can be relied on to systematically examine and test any idea they hear, to determine whether it's worthy of their belief. Children are wired to believe whatever they're told. That's why they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Treating "I told him this is true, and he believes me," as meaningful consent is exploitative, and that is exactly why children's consent is not considered legally valid.

So, if you didn't have a situation of real consent in mind, I'll use some of mine.

1. The kid heard about spanking from a friend or from reading. What they heard was, "if you do something wrong, your parents spank you, and then they hug and forgive you and then you've paid for what you did wrong and everything's good again."

If this kid had previously been raised with natural, real-life consequences--having to pay for things they break and earn back trust once you violate it (as the real world works)--this might sound very convenient. Spanking as "indulgences," if you will. You can misbehave any way you want, then get a quick spanking and there's no lasting consequences! To a cunning child with a mischevious streak, that might be a trade-off well worth considering. In that case, I think spanking the child is the worst thing you could do.

2. Sort of the flip side of the coin as the first one, a child might have some sort of anxiety disorder or other issue, and they might feel overwhelmed with guilt anytime they make a mistake and they want to be spanked because then they'd be able to forgive themself.

In that case, I would get them to counselling and try to help them learn about letting things go. In theory, though, I might not be opposed to spanking them *once in a great while* if they were really tearing themself up and nothing else was helping. The damage from the spanking would be minimized because they aren't really being violated, and what they were doing to themself was worse.

3. The kid might be just plain curious. This is what was going on in one of the situations I'de heard about, where a kid starting asking adults to spank him. A friend had mentioned being spanked, he never had been, and the idea seemed exotic and curious. My guess is that this is the sort of kid for whom not knowing or understanding something is deeply troubling, and would prefer to experience something unpleasant over continuing to not understand what that thing is like. They will probably grow up to be a scientist. Either that or they're actually kid #4. I wouldn't spank this kid, but if somebody else did--briefly and playfully--I wouldn't judge them for it.

4. Kid's a budding spanking fetishist. A lot of fetishists describe a really early fascination or obsession with the thing that, around puberty, became their fetish. I can attest to this. It's probably not a good idea to spank this kid.

If you can think of any other *truly* consensual situations--not where the child is being pressured by parents or religion, but where they own and embrace their (possibly mixed or grudging) desire to be spanked, let me know, and I'll answer. Those are the ones that I could think of.

Orange Kitten Bob · Apr 18, 2013

Ming made a good point, about bad kids wanting a spanking as an easy penalty for criminality. I have heard reports of the paddle used in schools to cover up serious criminal acts, 'to make the school look good'. Newsflash: murder, rape, mutilation, maiming, and unprovoked mayhem need the same perps up before a judge, not the belt or at most a grounding.

Joshua0 · Apr 18, 2013

Mling said:
How can it be ok to use these instincts against a child, for the convenience of the parent? I mean...how can it be ok for a parent to make their kid feel like they're in mortal danger, at the parent's hand?

Do you have any children? It is the parents job to protect their child and to keep them from harming themselves. So if you harm your child, it is to keep them from doing greater harm to themselves. Like a doctor at times has to hurt the patient. The objective there is to bring about healing. The authorities want parents to discipline their child. They do know the difference between child abuse and discipline. It is their job to evaluate families to make that determination.

So is this a question about discipline or a question about abuse? I have seen my wife chase after my son with a shoe in her hand. It is sort of funny actually. I do not think her intent is to harm him. I think her intent is to communicate to him that he is not going to get away with what he was doing that got her upset enough to chase after him. Of course now he is way bigger then her. But I am talking about back when he was smaller then her.

Chajara · Apr 23, 2013

As someone who's been turned on by spanking since childhood (I was fascinated with any cartoon that depicted it, acted it out with dolls, and felt horribly violated and gross when a family member swatted me on the butt once) the concept of adults spanking children really just... grosses me out. It's an inherently sexual act to me, so it's kind of impossible not to feel that way. And the ones who make an entire ritual of it? You'll never convince me they're not getting off on it secretly.

Tom White · Apr 23, 2013

Mling said:
Being persuaded that a thing is true and right and good still involves actively embracing the idea yourself. What you're describing is still, "I *have* to do this because everybody says I have to. Even Pastor said I have to--he said that *God* says I have to. If I don't accept this, I'll get worse from God." That's not persuasion--it's still buckling under pressure.

No, it's persuasion.

Otherwise, why not throw away your first amendment altogether? Why allow freedom of expression regarding religious ideas, freedom to choose what you will believe, personal responsibility for your beliefs, a free society if some are going to buckle under pressure and believe because they don't question what they are told?

Mling said:
It's the difference between a person signing a consent form for surgery because the doctor showed them some statistics and information about their condition and clearly showed that it was good for them vs signing the form because the doctor said, "You need this surgery. Sign here. Why? Because. I'm your doctor and I know what's best for you. Why? BECAUSE YOU'LL DIE! SIGN HERE OR YOU WILL DIE!!!!"

It is still my choice as to whether I will believe him or not. So long as I am not forced to believe him or go along with him by the law, I am free.

Mling said:
EDIT: Also, it's pretty disingenuous to talk about kids being "persuaded" as if children can be relied on to systematically examine and test any idea they hear, to determine whether it's worthy of their belief. Children are wired to believe whatever they're told. That's why they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

This is not something unique to children though is it? Because, you know, who ever heard of an adult that lacked skepticism? For example a politician makes a promise, they sound convincing, that persuades many.

Mling · Apr 24, 2013

As I said, I came out of christianforums retirement because I thought you were posing an interesting question. It's stopped being interesting, and if we continue, this conversation will turn into exactly the sort argument that I was trying to get away from.

For the safety of any romantic partners you may have, I hope you someday learn what consent really is, and that using a position of power to bulldoze somebody into submission does not qualify.

Goodbye. I'll probably stop lurking for a while, to avoid the temptation to respond.

Tom White said:
No, it's persuasion.

Otherwise, why not throw away your first amendment altogether? Why allow freedom of expression regarding religious ideas, freedom to choose what you will believe, personal responsibility for your beliefs, a free society if some are going to buckle under pressure and believe because they don't question what they are told?

It is still my choice as to whether I will believe him or not. So long as I am not forced to believe him or go along with him by the law, I am free.

This is not something unique to children though is it? Because, you know, who ever heard of an adult that lacked skepticism? For example a politician makes a promise, they sound convincing, that persuades many.

hedrick · Apr 25, 2013

Mling said:
As I said, I came out of christianforums retirement because I thought you were posing an interesting question. It's stopped being interesting, and if we continue, this conversation will turn into exactly the sort argument that I was trying to get away from.

For the safety of any romantic partners you may have, I hope you someday learn what consent really is, and that using a position of power to bulldoze somebody into submission does not qualify.

Goodbye. I'll probably stop lurking for a while, to avoid the temptation to respond.

I just taught a couple of weeks on ethics regarding sexuality, to 7th and 8th grade Sunday School students. Among other things, we talked about consent, and why sex is considered abusive if the other people is going to find it hard to turn you down.

For that reason, in sexual issues, we generally prohibit sex between an adult and anyone under 16/18 (depending upon the state), on the grounds that an adult can normally get a kid to do whatever they want, so genuine consent is nearly impossible to be sure of.

I've known a 16 year old who genuinely consented to being spanked, knew more or less what he was getting into, and didn't perceive it as sexual. He thought he needed help with his behavior, and that his parent was incapable of any other effective discipline. But one could reasonably take a position that real consent is so rare, and forced consent so likely, that one should assume that consent is effectively impossible in that kind of situation. That's basically the position we take on sex between adults and minors. In that case we should only use disciplinary techniques that we're comfortable using with requiring explicit consent. Not being a parent, I'm reluctant to comment whether spanking is OK without consent, though I tend to be skeptical, particularly with kids beyond puberty.

Ken-1122 · Apr 25, 2013

Mling said:
My other, more global thought is that, in nearly every other situation where somebody is using a position of authority to hurt other people, it is considered a form of corruption. If a police officer or prison warden beats a prisoner, it is illegal.

I disagree! When a person breaks the rules; police officers are expected to beat the person as a last resort to get him to obey the rules. They dont carry those night sticks and guns for show ya know! And prison gaurds are allowed to use physical force against prisoners to get them to obey the rules.

Mling said:
Likewise a soldier attacking a civilian.

Soldiers are not in a position of authority over civilians unless martial law is declared; and under those circumstances, they are allowed to use force against civilians.

Mling said:
To extend the idea, a boss who expects his secretary to do personal errands, and threatens her with some job-oriented discipline if she doesn't (denied a raise or something).

If those personal errands are a part of her job description, he is expected to do that.

Mling said:
I have to wonder how often this would happen if we stopped teaching our citizens that having power means you can hurt people who don't do what you want.

If the power you speak of is the law we should not be teaching citizens that they can break the law as they please without consequences

Mling said:
If the child is not taught that power means you can hurt people, how often will the adult assume it does? If the child is not taught that they deserve to be overpowered and hurt, how often will the adult accept such treatment?

In a civilized society, the law has power over citizens. Those who represent the law (police, Judges, etc.) are given the power to punish those who break the law. Police are allowed to beat you, or even kill you depending upon the offence.
In the home, the parents are the law. If it is okay for a police officer who doesnt even care about you, can use physical force to get you to obey the rules, why isnt it okay for a parent who thinks the world of his child; to use physical force to get the child to obey the house rules?

K

Christian7PraiseJesus · Apr 25, 2013

higgs2 said:
hmmmm.spanking is unnecessary and should never be used. There is always a better alternative. There is no way to know which child will be emotionally damaged by spanking and which child will get over it easily and even think they deserved it.

Oafman said:
Teach a child to associate punishment with violence, and they will seek to visit violence upon those who wrong them in adulthood. A perfect recipe for a violent society.

Agreed, and as Jesus, who is God, stated: "Those who wield the sword, die by the sword"and "You have heard before, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you when you face evil, turn the other cheek." He also stated John the baptist was "more than a prophet" and John the baptist before he baptizes Jesus, God, in the river stated, "Do NO violence" (aka Do violence against NO man). Jesus, who is God, further stated, "Blessed be the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

In regards for children, Jesus, who is God, stated: "Do not ye despise these little ones" and " But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
JESUS's, God's, words Matthew 18:6

JESUS who IS God, also stated:
"Matthew 18:5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." ""And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."
JESUS's, God's words, Matthew 10:42

"Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I AM the light of the world: he that follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
Jesus's, God's words, John 8:12

"If you love Me, keep My commandments."
Jesus's, God's, words, John 14:15

"And whoever doesn't take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me."
Jesus's, God's, words, Matthew 10:38

Chajara · Apr 25, 2013

hedrick said:
I just taught a couple of weeks on ethics regarding sexuality, to 7th and 8th grade Sunday School students. Among other things, we talked about consent, and why sex is considered abusive if the other people is going to find it hard to turn you down.

For that reason, in sexual issues, we generally prohibit sex between an adult and anyone under 16/18 (depending upon the state), on the grounds that an adult can normally get a kid to do whatever they want, so genuine consent is nearly impossible to be sure of.

I've known a 16 year old who genuinely consented to being spanked, knew more or less what he was getting into, and didn't perceive it as sexual. He thought he needed help with his behavior, and that his parent was incapable of any other effective discipline. But one could reasonably take a position that real consent is so rare, and forced consent so likely, that one should assume that consent is effectively impossible in that kind of situation. That's basically the position we take on sex between adults and minors. In that case we should only use disciplinary techniques that we're comfortable using with requiring explicit consent. Not being a parent, I'm reluctant to comment whether spanking is OK without consent, though I tend to be skeptical, particularly with kids beyond puberty.

Just wanted to say that it's really cool to hear about matters of consent being taught to kids. It's something that ought to be part of comprehensive sex ed that's taught to every kid in school by time they're old enough to become sexually active. Kudos.

quatona · Apr 26, 2013

Ken-1122 said:
In a civilized society, the law has power over citizens. Those who represent the law (police, Judges, etc.) are given the power to punish those who break the law. Police are allowed to beat you, or even kill you depending upon the offence.
In the home, the parents are the law. If it is okay for a police officer who doesnt even care about you, can use physical force to get you to obey the rules, why isnt it okay for a parent who thinks the world of his child; to use physical force to get the child to obey the house rules?

I am quite a bit surprised about the idea that our personal, private relationships are to be modeled after the way complex, anonymous societies handle their problems. This approach has admittedly never crossed my mind.
In paticular, while I understand how "the law" may be perceived as the greatest good in a complex society (whereas I personally have always considered it a means to a greater end), I do not seem to understand why this should also be the case between me and my child )or me and my spouse, or me and my friend, for that matter).

If it is okay for a police officer who doesnt even care about you, can use physical force to get you to obey the rules, why isnt it okay for a parent who thinks the world of his child; to use physical force to get the child to obey the house rules?

Exactly because - as opposed to a police-officer (who is but the carrier of a limited, law-related function) - they do care about them?

Ken-1122 · Apr 27, 2013

quatona said:
I am quite a bit surprised about the idea that our personal, private relationships are to be modeled after the way complex, anonymous societies handle their problems. This approach has admittedly never crossed my mind.
In paticular, while I understand how "the law" may be perceived as the greatest good in a complex society (whereas I personally have always considered it a means to a greater end), I do not seem to understand why this should also be the case between me and my child

It may not be a good idea for you and your child, but it may be for someone else and their child

quantona said:
)or me and my spouse, or me and my friend, for that matter).

With other adults it is different because under the law, they are equal to you. Your child is legally your responsibility; your friend is not.

K

quatona · Apr 28, 2013

Ken-1122 said:
It may not be a good idea for you and your child, but it may be for someone else and their child

Well, you based your argument on this idea as a general rule.
So, again: What is it with this idea of modeling your private relations after the way a complex society is regulated (and particularly in understanding my relation to my child as the equivalent of a police-officer to a criminal)? I´m seeing neither necessity nor any rational reason for doing so.

With other adults it is different because under the law, they are equal to you.

Yes, the resulting behaviour would be different - but I am questioning the basic concept of modeling private relations after the structures necessary fo a complex huge society to function.

Your child is legally your responsibility;

...and the criminal is not the policeman´s responsibility. That´s another point where your analogy is wanting.
I have also problems following the logic that because my child is my responsibility this suggests beating her into obedience.

Ken-1122 · Apr 28, 2013

quatona said:
Well, you based your argument on this idea as a general rule.
So, again: What is it with this idea of modeling your private relations after the way a complex society is regulated (and particularly in understanding my relation to my child as the equivalent of a police-officer to a criminal)? I´m seeing neither necessity nor any rational reason for doing so.

The reason (complex) society does this is because it works better than the alternative.

quatona said:
Yes, the resulting behaviour would be different - but I am questioning the basic concept of modeling private relations after the structures necessary fo a complex huge society to function.

I am not saying we should model all of our private relations after all structures necessary for huge society functions; I am only speaking for this one.

quatona said:
...and the criminal is not the policeman´s responsibility. That´s another point where your analogy is wanting.
I have also problems following the logic that because my child is my responsibility this suggests beating her into obedience.

First of all, the police man represents the law, and the criminal is the laws responsibility. Second; if beating her into obedience (as you call it) is the only thing that can keep your daughter from criminal behavior, I say break out the sticks baby!

Ken

quatona · Apr 28, 2013

Ken-1122 said:
The reason (complex) society does this is because it works better than the alternative.

Yes, I know why society does it, and I know that it´s meant to suit the needs of a complex society.
The question is: Why would we expect that modeling an intimate private relationship after these structures "works better" than the alternatives?
And what do we mean when saying "works" when it comes to a parent-child relationship?

I am not saying we should model all of our private relations after all structures necessary for huge society functions; I am only speaking for this one.

I know. However, the difference I see is exaclty the one-on-one relationship compared to structures necessary in a huge complex society.
Now, if you want to speak only about parent-child relationships and tell me why it´s a good idea to model them after said structures that´s fine with me.

First of all, the police man represents the law, and the criminal is the laws responsibility.

And what does a parent represent, in your opinion?

Second; if beating her into obedience (as you call it) is the only thing that can keep your daughter from criminal behavior,

Ah, so you advocate corporal punishment only in cases of criminal behaviour?

I say break out the sticks baby!

And I say: The wellbeing of children is our common responsibility as a society, and you should be kept from beating your child into obedience.

Ken-1122 · Apr 28, 2013

quatona said:
Yes, I know why society does it, and I know that it´s meant to suit the needs of a complex society.

First of all, I dont know why you keep calling it a complex society. I see nothing complex about a people representing the law, (police) using physical force as a last resort to prevent people from breaking the rules/law

quatona said:
The question is: Why would we expect that modeling an intimate private relationship after these structures "works better" than the alternatives?
And what do we mean when saying "works" when it comes to a parent-child relationship?

If the alternative to doing something as a last resort is to do nothing, something usually works better than nothing at all

quatona said:
I know. However, the difference I see is exaclty the one-on-one relationship compared to structures necessary in a huge complex society.
Now, if you want to speak only about parent-child relationships and tell me why it´s a good idea to model them after said structures that´s fine with me.

Okay. I am speaking only about the parent-child relationship.

First of all; I am not really talking about modeling the parent-child relationship after American society because lets face it; American society isnt the only structure in place that incorporates physical force as a last resort of enforcing the law; many other societies that existed before and will exist after our particular society has incorporated this idea as well.

Second of all; American society has a lot of stuff in place; lawyers, Miranda rights, trial by jury of peers, etc. that I would not recommend for the child-parent relationship; so I am not suggesting this child parent relationship be an exact modeled of this huge complex society that you speak of, Im just saying physical force of the house hold rules as a last resort might be in order sometimes.

Third; the reason I believe it is a good idea is because I know of plenty of examples where Ive seen it work. I dont think it is a coincidence that the bad behavior of children today is far worse than in yesteryear when corporal punishment was common. You can look at what kids are doing in schools today compared to yesterday, the lack of respect for their teachers and authority at school today compared to yesterday, I believe among other things; a lack of parental discipline is the result of this behavior.

quatona said:
And what does a parent represent, in your opinion?

Amongst other things; the law of the household.

quatona said:
Ah, so you advocate corporal punishment only in cases of criminal behaviour?

If what you mean by criminal behavior you mean to break the rules of the house? I say Yes! As a last resort[

quatona said:
And I say: The wellbeing of children is our common responsibility as a society, and you should be kept from beating your child into obedience.

I was sorta saying that as a joke. I assume you recognize the difference between beating a small child, and a tap on the bottom to get his attention; if you dont than we may not be understanding each other

Ken

quatona · Apr 28, 2013

Ken-1122 said:
First of all, I don’t know why you keep calling it a “complex” society. I see nothing complex about a people representing the law, (police) using physical force as a last resort to prevent people from breaking the rules/law

I call it complex because of several reasons.
The most important reason for purposes of the topic is:
Due to the large amount of people interacting with each other, certain processes have to be dealt with differently than it would be required for a one-on-one relationship. Which, among other things, lead to written laws and to the division of the aspects of relations into function-carriers: People who (unlike a parent towards a child) carry isolated functions. A policeman e.g. (with regards to his duties that you appealed to) is a policeman is a policeman is a policeman, and nothing else.
Furthermore, there are reasons why large society carefully write down laws for each and every occasion (and families don´t), and value the laws pretty high: Due to the huge amount of people involved, due to the amount of reasons for possible conflicts, due to the fact that these regulations are not only necessary for dealing with individual conflicts but with conflicts of groups, or of conflicts between the society as a whole and the individual, due to the fact that there often is little personal contact between the parties involved (see "function-carriers") it is impossible to rely on what people committed to each other typically do: Talk to each other, try various approaches and so forth. Society as a whole depends on strict regulations. A personal relationship doesn´t.

If the alternative to doing something as a last resort is to do nothing, something usually works better than nothing at all

I´m not sure whom you have seen here advocating "doing nothing". Certainly can´t have been me.

Okay. I am speaking only about the parent-child relationship.

Ok.

First of all; I am not really talking about modeling the parent-child relationship after American society because let’s face it; American society isn’t the only structure in place that incorporates physical force as a last resort of enforcing the law; many other societies that existed before and will exist after our particular society has incorporated this idea as well.

Second of all; American society has a lot of stuff in place; lawyers, Miranda rights, trial by jury of peers, etc. that I would not recommend for the child-parent relationship; so I am not suggesting this child parent relationship be an exact modeled of this huge complex society that you speak of, I’m just saying physical force of the house hold rules as a last resort might be in order sometimes.

Well, I didn´t say anything about America (I´m not American myself, btw.).
You compared the job of a parent to the carrier of a particular function in a larger society (policeman), and I am saying that unlike policemen parents aren´t carriers of one particular function towards their kids - they are their parents. Which means they are pretty much everything - an "everything" that society for obvious reasons (its complexity) divided into different functions that different persons have to carry out more or less anonymously and regardless of their personal relationships.

Third; the reason I believe it is a good idea is because I know of plenty of examples where I’ve seen it work.

Well, anecdotal evidence is not a particularly strong argument but let´s forget that for a moment. What do you mean when saying "it works"? What are the purposes, the criteria, the requirements and the results that prompt you to conclude "this works" (I am asking because we simply may not agree in our ideas about that).

I don’t think it is a coincidence that the bad behavior of children today is far worse than in yesteryear when corporal punishment was common. You can look at what kids are doing in schools today compared to yesterday, the lack of respect for their teachers and authority at school today compared to yesterday, I believe among other things; a lack of parental discipline is the result of this behavior.

So when was "yesterday/yesteryear" for purposes of this comparison? 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 2000 years ago? Or is it but the typical complaint about the rottenness of the next generation that is common to all generations since thousands of years?
I went to school 40-50 years ago, and I assure you that my teachers weren´t pleased with my behaviour (nor with the behaviour of my generation as a whole).
I have been working with kids and juveniles for more than thirty years, and I haven´t observed a significant decline.

So lets not engage in old men´s unspecific rants in replacement of actual arguments.

On another note: Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that along with decreasing application of corporal punishment a decline in the behaviour of the youngs could be evidenced - how (besides your "beliefs") do you get from correlation to causation?

Amongst other things; the law of the household.

Yes, "amongst other things"! See above. A parent is not the carrier of an isolated function.

Secondly, there are reasons why "the law" isn´t as big a deal in a family as it is in a society.

Thirdly, another difference between the relationships "society (or its function-carrier like a policeman) - citizens" and "parents - children" is: Policemen deal with adults, i.e. with people who are expected to have learned about the laws etc. Whereas parents deal with children who have yet to learn about these things. I find the difference between raising someone into a system and enforcing law on someone who is expected to have been raised into it quite significant. There is no reason to assume that both pursuits suggest or require the same methods.

If what you mean by “criminal behavior” you mean to break the rules of the house?

No. By "criminal behaviour" I meant "criminal behaviour".

I was sorta saying that as a joke.

Ok, my bad. Blame it on my lack of humour.

I assume you recognize the difference between beating a small child, and a tap on the bottom to get his attention; if you don’t than we may not be understanding each other

Well, the topic is "corporal punishment". I recognize the difference between "a little tap to get someone´s attention" and "corporal punishment".
So when you actually had been talking about "small taps to get their attention" all the time, I am understanding the parallel between policemen (which you brought up as the enforcer of laws) and parents even less now than I did previously.
And I recognize that if all you meant to defend were "small taps to get their attention" you were off-topic all the time.
But to be honest, I am more inclined that initially you were talking about corporal punishment, and now you are peddling back by bringing up "small taps to get their attention".

Ken-1122 · Apr 29, 2013

quatona said:
I´m not sure whom you have seen here advocating "doing nothing". Certainly can´t have been me.

Im saying corporal punishment should be used as a last resort. If youve tried everything else and everything else has failed, taking away the option of corporal punishment means you do nothing at all doesnt it? Unless you gonna keep trying some of the stuff that has been proven to not work

quatona said:
Well, I didn´t say anything about America (I´m not American myself, btw.).

quatona said:
You compared the job of a parent to the carrier of a particular function in a larger society (policeman),

When I gave the original example, I was referring to American laws. You commented on my example so I assumed you were referring to my American example.
If you are suggesting I am saying the parents only job is that of a policeman, you have misunderstood me. The job of a parent consists of many jobs; the policeman is only one of those jobs.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

quatona said:
[/font]

quatona said:
Well, anecdotal evidence is not a particularly strong argument but let´s forget that for a moment. What do you mean when saying "it works"? What are the purposes, the criteria, the requirements and the results that prompt you to conclude "this works" (I am asking because we simply may not agree in our ideas about that).

All of those people who were raised with corporal punishment and are now well functioning adults.

quatona said:
So when was "yesterday/yesteryear" for purposes of this comparison? 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 2000 years ago? Or is it but the typical complaint about the rottenness of the next generation that is common to all generations since thousands of years?

Go ask an American teacher about the differences of bad behavior in classrooms between children of today vs 20-30 years ago

quatona said:
Secondly, there are reasons why "the law" isn´t as big a deal in a family as it is in a society.

I know many family members who will disagree with you. An argument can be made that if you raise a child with the expectation that they dont have to respect authority or the rules of the house, they can carry this attitude into the real world and will lack respect for police authority, or the rule of law; which can lead to problems.

quatona said:
Thirdly, another difference between the relationships "society (or its function-carrier like a policeman) - citizens" and "parents - children" is: Policemen deal with adults, i.e. with people who are expected to have learned about the laws etc. Whereas parents deal with children who have yet to learn about these things.

No! Children are expected to know the rules of the household. It is the parents job to teach them

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

quatona said:
[/FONT]

quatona said:
No. By "criminal behaviour" I meant "criminal behaviour"

Okay! Youve obviously misunderstood me again

quatona said:
Ok, my bad. Blame it on my lack of humour.

Well, the topic is "corporal punishment". I recognize the difference between "a little tap to get someone´s attention" and "corporal punishment".
So when you actually had been talking about "small taps to get their attention" all the time, I am understanding the parallel between policemen (which you brought up as the enforcer of laws) and parents even less now than I did previously.
And I recognize that if all you meant to defend were "small taps to get their attention" you were off-topic all the time.
But to be honest, I am more inclined that initially you were talking about corporal punishment, and now you are peddling back by bringing up "small taps to get their attention".

I am talking about small taps on the bottom to spankings as deemed necessary, but I am not talking about abuse. Do you see a difference?

Ken

Corporal Punishment

Member

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Newbie

Joshua0

Guest

iEdit

Member

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

iEdit

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Similar threads