Researchers Analyze 50 Years of Spanking Studies

Open Heart said:

Not everyone was exposed to lead, and when people are, the worse the exposure, the worse the effects.

Click to expand...

Great. Now go read the study.

Locutus said:

You seem to be somewhat ignorant of just how bad and toxic some parents can be. A little Pollyanna to suggest that ultimately all kids are better off with their parents.

Click to expand...

Not ignorant - i know some awful parents. But I am quite determined that the worst case should not determine the rules for the majority of families which work and that the definition of abuse should not include smacking

Locutus said:

Interesting. My family lives 'by hand', and do a lot of heavy physical work, lots of exercise, and martial arts. Both my husband and myself are trained in sciences which require a hands-on approach, carried out while standing and moving about as often as when seated. But we never resorted to physical/violence discipline.

Click to expand...

Smacking is hardly violence as any one who does martial arts knows. If you have trained your kids to do martial arts then they would probably laugh at a smack on the bottom anyway. But if they did not parry a blow aimed at them in training correctly they could break an arm for instance. Indeed to some extent you learn the motor skills involved in a martial art both from the pain of failure and the affirmation that comes from doing it right.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Most still don't, and smoking is still legal.
You definitely seem to be the one having an issue with treating children differently than adults, since you brought it up. English is a pretty awesome language where a word can mean more than one thing, like the word ROD for example. There's a rod that holds up my clothes in my closet, for example. A rod can be a learning tool, or it can be a tool of punishment.

If you understand why children are treated differently than adults, you would understand why it's illegal for me to spank you but not my children..

Click to expand...

I did not bring up why we treat adults and children differently. I asked the question: Why do people interpret a word in the Bible differently when it comes to children versus adults. It is a mystery to me that "rod" can mean "comfort" when it is a bout an adult (Psalm 23) and "spanking" when it is about children (Proverbs 23). Then you borught in 1 Cor 13, which is not very relevant to either Psalm 23 nor Proverbs 23. Anyway, I assume you do not have an answer to my question about interpretation.

PreachersWife2004 said:

English is a pretty awesome language where a word can mean more than one thing, like the word ROD for example. There's a rod that holds up my clothes in my closet, for example. A rod can be a learning tool, or it can be a tool of punishment.

Click to expand...

Since the Bible was written in Hebrew - not in English - then that comment is totally irrelevant to the meaning of the Bible text

mindlight said:

Maybe you should read them in Norwegian, cause they all refer to the theme of child discipline. Such discipline is not merely about spanking ( but since it includes reference to the rod of punishment cannot exclude it) - it is about the whole way you teach a child the way it should go.

Click to expand...

Why would I have to read them in Norwegian? Is not Greek good enough? Or English?
The verses speak about discipline, but not directly about spanking. Spanking may be included, if you assume it to be so. However, these verse do not say anything directly about spanking. So, the only way to come to that conclusion is through an interpretation of the verses. I am not convinced such interpretation is good Biblical exegesis.

"The rod" is not about punishment, it refers to a shepherds rod, compare Psalm 23 where The Lord's rod comforts - not spanks - David

Locutus said:

First, intelligence doesn't even enter into it. That's an absurd thing to suggest, quite frankly. And genetic developmental delay syndromes are actually relatively rare, if the studies are any indicator. What you're seeing (and inadvertently defending), is inherited apathy. This is what the refugees don't have.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is really inherited apathy in a simple sense. One thing a refuge has is a starters gun. The gun goes off and they know the race has started the second their feet hit new soil. Those who are born into poverty and grow up in poverty are apt to never get a clear signal to start.

Locutus said:

A child won't struggle in the classroom if parents are beside them (educationally speaking) 100% from day one. No tutors or truckloads of free time are required. Nor is an understanding of the work involved. My kids sailed past me in math by the time they were 12, but it didn't stop me 'supervising' math homework, and adding prompts to try a problem from a different approach, or helping them find solutions. They understood that it was important, because I acted as though it was - and that's what has the impact. It's absurd to suggest we must know everything they will learn in order to help.

Click to expand...

No. Children will still struggle. I made a nice pop of money tutoring math because despite the best efforts of parents their children still struggled.

But there is a huge difference between struggling and failing and the things you pointed out usually are enough to get a kid to at least pass.

Open Heart said:

flawed reasoning.

Click to expand...

Are you admitting that your reasoning is very flawed, or trying to accuse my reasoning of being flawed? If it's the latter, then please explain why. Have you actually looked up the reasons given by the countries that have made it illegal? Why is it "flawed reasoning" to disagree w you that they haven't just made it illegal bc of a "belief" that it's harmful without any reason to support that? That's completely illogical, and to be frank, just silly. It feels like you're just throwing out things without even reasoning them through 1st, just bc someone doesn't agree with you. Can you answer the qs I've asked? I'll repeat. Why would they believe it was harmful if there wasn't some evidence that it was? What countries that have made it illegal have a "pacifist culture" like you claim?

TheNorwegian said:

I did not bring up why we treat adults and children differently. I asked the question: Why do people interpret a word in the Bible differently when it comes to children versus adults. It is a mystery to me that "rod" can mean "comfort" when it is a bout an adult (Psalm 23) and "spanking" when it is about children (Proverbs 23). Then you borught in 1 Cor 13, which is not very relevant to either Psalm 23 nor Proverbs 23. Anyway, I assume you do not have an answer to my question about interpretation.

Click to expand...

But no one interpreted the word differently between adults and children. People interpreted the CONTEXT differently.

Since the Bible was written in Hebrew - not in English - then that comment is totally irrelevant to the meaning of the Bible text

Click to expand...

Goal post shift noted...suddenly you want to bring Hebrew into the mix. Okay,

This comes from an apologetics site. There's more there if you want to read it.

Maqqel refers to a tree branch that has been transformed into a riding crop (Numbers 22:27), a shepherd’s staff (1 Samuel 17:40—which Goliath called a “stave” or “stick”—vs. 43), or a weapon of war (Ezekiel 39:9—“javelin” in the NKJV). It is also used as a symbol of dominion (e.g., Jeremiah 48:17—where it occurs in synonymous parallelism with matteh), and in its natural state as a branch of a poplar, chestnut, or almond tree (Genesis 30:37; Jeremiah 1:11) [see Harris, et al., 1980, 1:524; Botterweck, et al., 1997, 8:548-550].

Matteh occurs 252 times and is used to refer to a branch, stick, stem, rod, shaft, staff, and most often a tribe (some 180 times). It can refer to a stick used to beat out cumin/grain (Isaiah 28:27), a soldier’s spear (1 Samuel 14:27), as well as the shaft of an arrow (Habakkuk 3:9,14) [Botterweck, et al., 8:241; Gesenius, 1847, pp. 466-467].

Shevet, the word used in Proverbs, refers to a staff, stick, rod, scepter, and tribe. Gesenius defined it as “a staff, stick, rod” and then showed how it is translated differently in accordance with the use to which it was put, whether for beating, striking, chastening (Isaiah 10:5,15), a shepherd’s crook (Leviticus 27:32; Psalm 34:4), a king’s scepter (Genesis 49:10; Amos 1:5,8), a tribe (Judges 20:2), a measuring rod, or a spear (2 Samuel 18:14) [p. 801; cf. Harris, et al., 2:897].

Matteh and shevet are used together in Ezekiel 19:10-14 to refer to fresh tree branches. They are used in synonymous parallelism in Isaiah 28:27 as a stick used to beat out cumin/grain: “But the black cumin is beaten out with a stick (matteh), and the cumin with a rod (shevet).” They are unquestionably synonyms. If any distinction can be made between them, it is that matteh is not used to refer to a scepter (see Harris, et al., 2:897; although Gesenius, pp. 466-467). However, both are used to refer to a stick or rod. In fact, shevet is specifically referred to as a rod used for beating a human being: “And if a man beats his servant or his maidservant with a rod…” (Exodus 21:20). As Isaacs noted: “The Heb[rew] shebhet is the ordinary word for rod or club” (1959, 4:2702; cf. McClintock and Strong, 1880, 9:57-58,401).

In addition to the verses in Proverbs that refer specifically to spanking a child, several additional verses verify that literal striking of the body with a wooden stick is envisioned. For example, “Wisdom is found on the lips of him who has understanding, but a rod is for the back of him who is devoid of understanding” (Proverbs 10:13). “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the fool’s back” (Proverbs 26:3). Obviously, the “rod” is as literal as the “whip” and “bridle.” The Psalmist declared: “Then I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes” (Psalm 89:32). Though speaking figuratively, the Psalmist aligned “rod” with “stripes.” In passages where the term “rod” is used figuratively, the figurative use presupposes the literal meaning (e.g., Job 9:34; 21:9; Isaiah 10:24; 11:4; 14:29; 30:31; Lamentations 3:1; Micah 5:1).

Locutus said:

Your job is to watch them 24/7. And yes, some of us did/do just that. I did it. My kids are all big and hairy now, so I have time to come here and respond to your bollocks

Click to expand...

Cearbhall said:

No, the point is that you can't have your eyes on them every single second of every day, and that is why the pot needs to be out of reach. It's your fault if the child's environment is dangerous when you know they'll be unsupervised for short periods of time.

Click to expand...

I'm confused, which is it now? Honestly, I don't believe claims of "I watched my kids 24/7". There's no way!

Locutus, how the heck did you go to the bathroom? Did you haul your kids in with you all the time?

It could be said that any time a kid gets in trouble that it's the parent's fault. Does that mean we should never punish them and only punish ourselves?

mindlight said:

Smacking is hardly violence as any one who does martial arts knows. If you have trained your kids to do martial arts then they would probably laugh at a smack on the bottom anyway. But if they did not parry a blow aimed at them in training correctly they could break an arm for instance. Indeed to some extent you learn the motor skills involved in a martial art both from the pain of failure and the affirmation that comes from doing it right.

Click to expand...

I didn't train my kids in martial arts, their coaches did. But yes, you're right. They are quite physically tough - especially our medal-winning eldest son, who's been doing the sport for the longest. Though the martial art in question is weapon-based, so all body contact is via the weapon, not the hand/foot etc.

PreachersWife2004 said:

I'm confused, which is it now? Honestly, I don't believe claims of "I watched my kids 24/7". There's no way!

Locutus, how the heck did you go to the bathroom? Did you haul your kids in with you all the time?

It could be said that any time a kid gets in trouble that it's the parent's fault. Does that mean we should never punish them and only punish ourselves?

Click to expand...

24/7 being a figure of speech - obviously. We do have to sleep for 8 of those hours. And small kids sleep 12 of them. That still leaves 12 hours of full supervision, though. Yes, there will be seconds or minutes where we must turn our back, but we ensure total safety of environment before doing so.

keith99 said:

No. Children will still struggle. I made a nice pop of money tutoring math because despite the best efforts of parents their children still struggled.

But there is a huge difference between struggling and failing and the things you pointed out usually are enough to get a kid to at least pass.

Click to expand...

Only if there is some learning deficit. My father in law is a specialist tutor - who works with academically gifted kids. He himself studied pure maths, and also has a degree in Education. He's been doing this work for 60 years, in various locations around the world. He swears any (developmentally normal) child can excel - all they need is people around them to support it.

I've personally worked in public schools with kids who are falling behind, in one on one sessions. I can't remember any kids who didn't improve. Some went on to excel. One memorable little girl was so far behind she effectively couldn't read or write at age 7. She's now in a selective academic high school, topping her class. No thanks at all to her family, who were busy watching tv and shopping (I know the parents). Another who at age 4 was diagnosed as delayed, but after a year of 3 sessions per week with a specialist, caught up to his peers. All the specialist did was focus on him and engage him. She merely did what his mother couldn't or wouldn't do.

Locutus said:

Only if there is some learning deficit. My father in law is a specialist tutor - who works with academically gifted kids. He himself studied pure maths, and also has a degree in Education. He's been doing this work for 60 years, in various locations around the world. He swears any (developmentally normal) child can excel - all they need is people around them to support it.

I've personally worked in public schools with kids who are falling behind, in one on one sessions. I can't remember any kids who didn't improve. Some went on to excel. One memorable little girl was so far behind she effectively couldn't read or write at age 7. She's now in a selective academic high school, topping her class. No thanks at all to her family, who were busy watching tv and shopping (I know the parents). Another who at age 4 was diagnosed as delayed, but after a year of 3 sessions per week with a specialist, caught up to his peers. All the specialist did was focus on him and engage him. She merely did what his mother couldn't or wouldn't do.

Click to expand...

Seems you have a very different definition than I do of excelling.

keith99 said:

Seems you have a very different definition than I do of excelling.

Click to expand...

I'm only referring to academics, here. Often education is the clincher for breaking out of the poverty cycle.

Locutus said:

I'm only referring to academics, here. Often education is the clincher for breaking out of the poverty cycle.

Click to expand...

The same rules apply for what is exceling. Exceeds expectations one of the classic definitions of a 'B' is not exceling. Scoring an 800 on a part of the SAT is exceling, a 600 is not.

keith99 said:

I'm not sure it is really inherited apathy in a simple sense. One thing a refuge has is a starters gun. The gun goes off and they know the race has started the second their feet hit new soil. Those who are born into poverty and grow up in poverty are apt to never get a clear signal to start.

Click to expand...

My refugees were born into (and grew to adulthood in) extreme poverty, by western standards. Far worse than even the poorest in America. The only starting gun is sudden access to free education and welfare (giving them the base to move forward). The very things which have always been available to those born in the west.

I'm very aware of disenfranchisement issues, especially for indigenous peoples, so I don't want to give the impression I'm sort of quasi right wing "down with welfare, just work hard" nutjob. I'm a socialist, as it happens, and believe absolutely in the importance of very good welfare infrastructure and a living 'allowance'. But I do believe in making the most of the advantages of a socialist democracy (free education and welfare) in order to progress ourselves and our societies.

Open Heart said:

The overwhelming majority of people who have studied the field believe that we are a combination of nature and nurture, not merely nature, and not merely nurture. For example I counsel alcoholics. I know very well that there is an interplay between a genetic predisposition and childhood experiences such as alcoholic parents or peer pressure as an adolescent.

Click to expand...

Epigenetics. Anyone arguing against epigenetics is a philistine in the mental health world.
Essentially it comes down to: "Genetics load the gun; environment pulls the trigger". Genes can turn on and off due to all kinds of factors.

keith99 said:

The same rules apply for what is exceling. Exceeds expectations one of the classic definitions of a 'B' is not exceling. Scoring an 800 on a part of the SAT is exceling, a 600 is not.

Click to expand...

I actually believe that all kids can be straight A students. I'm not saying they should, just that they can. The only limitations to this, again, is neurological impairment or some other compromising medical condition.

Locutus said:

Your job is to watch them 24/7. And yes, some of us did/do just that. I did it. My kids are all big and hairy now, so I have time to come here and respond to your bollocks

Click to expand...

So you were a helicopter parent?
Because those are the worst. Ugh....