Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
11,893
7,310
51
✟305,463.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I am saying that 'not using corporal punishment' but also not replacing that punishment with any other sufficent discipline and punishment leads to "variance of such behaviour" or poor behaviour.
They have the same meaning.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,417
923
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟240,394.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They have the same meaning.
If thats the case then my original claim still stands. If ,not using corporal punishment' also means not replacing that punishment with any other sufficent diciplinary method will by logic lead to a variance in behaviour that is unacceptable because there is no discipline at all, no consequence for bad behaviour.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
3,798
2,464
Worcestershire
✟155,877.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If that is what the policies are producing then they are absurd policies.
In the first place I would not call parents' choice not to strike their children a policy, any more than I would the opposite - using corporal punishment. They are just cultural norms. It is generally true that parents act towards their children in a similar way to how they themselves were treated.

Secondly there is no justification for concluding that any breakdown in general behaviour (which has never been shown in any period) is a result of parents not using corporal punishment.

It is not absurd to use other effective means to chastise children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

lanceleo

Active Member
Apr 18, 2018
231
60
...
✟44,768.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Secondly there is no justification for concluding that any breakdown in general behaviour (which has never been shown in any period) is a result of parents not using corporal punishment.

Proverbs 13:24​

24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lost Witness
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,568
3,073
✟210,775.00
Faith
Non-Denom
If a child is spanked using reasonable force that can be acceptable. Reasonable force in some countries has even been the legal term allowed. Look here's what it really comes down to. I think of Psalm 1 where it says we're to beware of sitting in the seat of the scornful. I'm sure most here know that the Bible speaks of at times, if need be physically disciplining a child. I think it all falls in line with reasonable force too.....not unreasonable.

So what about it? Whose thoughts and world view are you going to embrace? The worlds? Granted it can be considered so very respectable to do that.....I think we better put God's instruction book on the subject over the worlds. I think with a lot of kids perhaps most with their just knowing their parents are not pleased with them causes them to cry in a sad remorse. They change immediately with out any need to anything physical but look you can do all the polite things of time outs, time outs, time outs and an odd kid with just despise your weakness.....or that's how they look upon it.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
11,893
7,310
51
✟305,463.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If thats the case then my original claim still stands. If ,not using corporal punishment' also means not replacing that punishment with any other sufficent diciplinary method will by logic lead to a variance in behaviour that is unacceptable because there is no discipline at all, no consequence for bad behaviour.
I’ve no idea why you would think that. I really can’t make any sense out of your position.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,778
754
partinowherecular
✟83,220.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I think we better put God's instruction book on the subject over the worlds.

Personally, I think the bible is an extremely poor guidebook for just about anything, and child rearing is no different.

But that being as it may, please explain this bit for me... "Whoever spares the rod hates their children,"

Do you really believe that this is true, or could there be just a touucchhh of hyperbole there. Unfortunately, far too many Christians take these things literally. Which then leaves the rest of the Christians trying to backtrack from a blatant exaggeration. At which point they say... see, it all makes perfect sense if you know what the author was actually trying to say.

I'm sorry, but a guidebook that needs to constantly be explained just isn't a very good guidebook. You know... it's a problem when a guidebook needs a guidebook. Not to say that modern psychology is any better, but when it comes to sociology, I think that a book that's over 3000 years old might be due for a bit of updating.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,417
923
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟240,394.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In the first place I would not call parents' choice not to strike their children a policy, any more than I would the opposite - using corporal punishment. They are just cultural norms.
I disagree. The idea that corporal punishment is against the law in some places especially now in the West is law and policy. Someone that comes to our society from which corporal punishment was a cultural norm can no longer practice their beliefs. So it seems parental choices and beliefs about how to bring up kids has been usurped by the State.

When the State infringes on personal and private affairs of family and belief then we have to ask whether we really have freedoms. So it seems however society sees child rearing and discipline it is now dictated by the State and its agents and thats not a good thing. When one form of dicipline is denied that usually means an alternative has been pushed instead which can be just as bad.

Society has to be on the same page when it comes to child rearing. You can't have families bringing up kids one way and then the State and its agents through our institutions such as schools teach another way. It just contradicts things and causes chaos in which the State being the greater power will always win.
Secondly there is no justification for concluding that any breakdown in general behaviour (which has never been shown in any period) is a result of parents not using corporal punishment.
Once again I am not saying that the breakdown in behaviour is the result of not using corporal punishment. Corporal punishment though wrong did provide discipline. It did stop a lot of bad behaviour within schools just by the fact that many were fearful of the consequences. I guess a bit like people fearful of the death penalty for murder or young people fearful of jail for doing wrong.

So that in itself shows that 'not having corporal punishment' will lead to some breakdown in behaviour'.

The point I was making is that yes corporal punishment (CP) was abusive but the fact is we needed some sufficent disciplinary method with the same weight as CP to be effective. Whether that weight is by fear of consequences or the instilling of greater respect through a strong and united belief and morality about how we raise our kids.

But this has not happened. We have outlawed corporal punishment but have not replaced it with any effective disciplinary method and as a result kids are becoming unruley which is evidenced in the big increase in student misbehaviour and juvenile delinguency. But also in how kids are disrespecting their parents.

I attribute this is a combination of the breakdown of the family which has been caused by the redefining of marriage, family and parental roles which is linked to the general progressive ideas about sex, gender, race and the rise of individual rights based identity politics which puts the individual and group above the rights of families and communities.
It is not absurd to use other effective means to chastise children.
I agree, but I wasn't saying that 'its absurd to use other diciplinary methods'. I was saying its absurd to get rid of corporal punishment and then replace it with nothing or even something that promotes disrespect and the very behaviour we are trying to stop as has been done in our institutions (schools) which eventually filter down to families and in general society.

I agree that the use of effective means to chastise children is by no means absurd and is vitally needed. But the question is what is regarded as effective. The word chastise means 'rebukes or reprimands severely' so whatever the discipline is it has to be something that is going to clearly state that certain behaviour is wrong and needs to stop and that this will require some harsh measures that hold the person accountable.

But at present there is nothing like that. Do gooders have pushed the softly, softly approach based on all these progressive academic ideas associated with Critical theories which are actually undermining discipline by injecting rights over all else. Rights according to their ideological beliefs about human nature.

Under this thinking making harsh discipline seem like oppression or abusive. We know this ideology doesn't work it just puts kids in cotton wool away from the realities of lifes lessons and cultivates disrespect for authority.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,417
923
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟240,394.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Proverbs 13:24​

24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

What nonsense!
I think there is some truth in this proverb. The principle is that love doesn't mean protecting kids from the realities of life, of facing up to their wrongs and experiencing the discomfort even pain of life. Rather than cotton wooling kids and ensuring they avoid any discomfort and are always made to feel happy and safe.

When in fact suffering the pain of your wrong doing is an important part of growing. So true love sometimes means being what some consider cruel to be kind.

So theres some truth in the saying "No pain no gain". Sometimes that involved physical pain. Maybe not with the rod but with other forms of suffering and from this we grow and theres no other way around this without going through that pain.

I don't know maybe back in those days they did not know anyother way. I don't think kids were beaten but maybe this was measured and effectivewithin an overall respectful and loving environment. This makes a difference between the rod being a last resort and it being used as the only measure for discipline.

Certainly much of our history is based on people suffering some sort of pain as a consequence for wrongdoing. We can argue that some of these psychological pains result in physical suffering. But what is worse physical or psychological pain.

But the progressive ideology goes to the other extreme of physical punishment by believing that any discomfort or suffering including disadvantage to certain groups is basically oppressive and abusive. In that sense they have rejected not only corporal punishment but punishment perse.

So its more the principle that punishment and discipline should involve some suffering and pain of some sort that I think undermines discipline for wrong doing. WE hate to make people feel bad but feeling bad sometimes is a facty of life which helps us become better people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
33,963
18,939
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,461,767.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
When the State infringes on personal and private affairs of family and belief then we have to ask whether we really have freedoms.
The state has a duty to protect our most vulnerable members from abuse. The freedom to abuse - no matter how "personal" or "private" the abuse - is not a freedom worth protecting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,586
9,928
78
Auckland
✟372,968.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Child abuse has increased steeply in New Zealand since the anti-smacking law was passed.

It seems the alternatives being pushed to replace traditional, biblical discipline are not working, so frustration levels rise and parents loose their rag.

Children soon learn to manipulate their parents if there are no serious consequences for their unacceptable behaviours.
 
Upvote 0