Corporal Punishment Reinstated

[SkepticThinker]

Read it carefully.

I asked you:
What does that mean? Where did I argue that?

Because you are stating that somehow a doctor cannot direct what the "authority" is saying and present a case where he shows where it is wrong. You are appealing to authority just because "they said so".

That's not an appeal to authority fallacy and that's not what I'm saying.

Citing that the vast, vast majority of evidence falls on the side against corporal punishment is not an appeal to an authority. You're the one attempting to appeal to authority by citing one single doctor whose beliefs about spanking go against what the vast majority of evidence shows us.

Sorry, auto correct. Disciplining. LOL Don't know how that got there.

LOL Oh okay. That makes more sense.

For the fiftieth time (exaggerating of course ) - it isn't "outdated" anymore than gravity is "outdated" for the reason that the good doctor explained (if you really read it ) - I excerpted some of it.

It's outdated in light of all the evidence that has been collected over the last 25+ years, which is the time period in which the vast majority of studies on the subject have actually been done.
Before that, we were kind of just going with popular opinion.

It's also outdated in light of the fact that the AAP has changed their position on corporal punishment from the one they held in 1996. Why? EVIDENCE. You didn't address this either.

That's because you didn't read it and threw out what I quoted. I can see when no matter what I quote it will be irrelevant for you. (Which is fine - you can rear your children the way you want to).

I responded DIRECTLY to the quotes you posted. This is your response.

And you have nothing at all to say about the point I am making about how you're going with the (outdated) outlier, instead of with the vast majority of evidence.

Maybe this will help:
"Over the past two decades, we have seen an international shift in perspectives concerning the physical punishment of children. In 1990, research showing an association between physical punishment and negative developmental outcomes was starting to accumulate, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child had just been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations; however, only four countries had prohibited physical punishment in all settings.

By 2000, research was proliferating, and the convention had been ratified by 191 of the world’s 196 countries, 11 of which had prohibited all physical punishment. Today, research showing the risks associated with physical punishment is robust, the convention has been integrated into the legal and policy frameworks of many nations, and 31 countries have enacted prohibitions against the physical punishment of children.1 These three forces — research, the convention and law reform — have altered the landscape of physical punishment.

The growing weight of evidence and the recognition of children’s rights have brought us to a historical point. Physicians familiar with the research can now confidently encourage parents to adopt constructive approaches to discipline and can comfortably use their unique influence to guide other aspects of children’s healthy development. ...

...As recently as 20 years ago, the physical punishment of children was generally accepted worldwide and was considered an appropriate method of eliciting behavioural compliance that was conceptually distinct from physical abuse. However, this perspective began to change as studies found links between “normative” physical punishment and child aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life. Some of these studies involved large representative samples from the United States;2 some studies controlled for potential confounders, such as parental stress3 and socioeconomic status;4 and some studies examined the potential of parental reasoning to moderate the association between physical punishment and child aggression.5 Virtually without exception, these studies found that physical punishment was associated with higher levels of aggression against parents, siblings, peers and spouses.

...These findings are all consistent with the growing body of literature on the impact of adverse childhood experiences on neurological, cognitive, emotional and social development, as well as physical health.38 Although some studies have found no relation between physical punishment and negative outcomes,35 and others have found the relation to be moderated by other factors,12 no study has found physical punishment to have a long-term positive effect, and most studies have found negative effects.17"
Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research

You are contradicting yourself. If my parenting skills produce a well balanced crop but then you criticize the method, who is in the bias arena?

No, I'm not. How do you know you've produced a "well balanced crop?" How did you determine that was a result of your use of corporal punishment?
You are biased in regards to your own parenting skills. Everyone is. Everyone has biases. The scientific method, as I'm sure you know, was designed to remove human biases. Which is why it's so useful. It works a lot better than just taking peoples' word for it.

Thus, when scientific studies " Abusive forms of physical punishment such as kicking, punching, and beating are commonly grouped with mild spanking. Furthermore, the studies usually include, and even emphasize, corporal punishment of adolescents rather than focusing on preschool children, where spanking is more appropriate and effective. This blurring of distinctions between spanking and physical abuse, and between children of different ages, gives critics the illusion of having data condemning all disciplinary spanking."

I call that a faulty "scientific study" no matte who peer-reviewed it.

Well, since this was written almost thirty years ago, it wouldn't include any of the studies that have been since then that have actually studied spanking and it's outcomes specifically. That's the problem in using outdated material. I hope you realize that now.

And you still haven't explained why you ignore the vast majority of evidence and instead pin all your beliefs on a single, outdated outlier.

 

[Kenny]

I

It's also outdated in light of the fact that the AAP has changed their position on corporal punishment from the one they held in 1996. Why? EVIDENCE. You didn't address this either.

r.

Lest we get so wide and far on the subject, let me take a step back for a minute.

You constantly quote AAP as if they are the god on child rearing and yet they "changed their position". So, first they were all for it (by all their studies of 30+ years and after 100 years of disciplining through consequences that produced pretty much a balanced society, they have now decided that all that history was for the birds and developed a new set of rules)

Dr Spock came up with the idea of "no spanking" back in 1946 and really came to being in the 1960's.

So, "after years of accumulating data" - that has produced a crazy generation, I am to assume that even though it worked before, now it doesn't? Or is it the accumulation of "Let the child develop by themselves - coddle, cuddle, let them just develop on their own capacity".?

So we have an organization that changes their minds and then, to boot, they have changed their minds on gender identity.

Key points that they give:

• The prevalence of gender dysphoria is increasing, and all providers should be prepared to interact with transgender patients.
  
  
• Gender-affirming care has been shown to improve health outcomes. The specific treatments recommended vary depending on age and developmental stage.

https://publications.aap.org/pediat...1/122/Gender-Identity?redirectedFrom=fulltext

So now, whereas before it was gender dysphoria, it is now "normal" and shouldn't be addressed as a psychological issue.

And you want me to accept this organization that changes their mind as the gurus in children?

Illogical.

Logically, I am going to take the stance that they have become a liberal organization that throws out logic and history for the benefit of a personal viewpoint or a biased agenda.

Whistleblower: American Academy of Pediatrics Ignored, Buried Doctors' Major Concerns Over Trans Agenda

Indeed, the 30 years ago studies are the ones that worked!

As the data on my children's rearing and their children's rearing testify. We are batting 1000.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lest we get so wide and far on the subject, let me take a step back for a minute.

You constantly quote AAP as if they are the god on child rearing and yet they "changed their position". So, first they were all for it (by all their studies of 30+ years and after 100 years of disciplining through consequences that produced pretty much a balanced society, they have now decided that all that history was for the birds and developed a new set of rules)

I’m “constantly quoting” the AAP because you brought them up. You provided an almost thirty-year old quote from them on their policy toward corporal punishment. That’s why we’re harping on and on about the AAP here.

I literally just provided you with a link outlining the evolution of societal and psychological views on corporal punishment and describing exactly how and why the AAP’s views on the subject changed over time. The bottom line is that the accumulation of EVIDENCE from a variety of academic sources indicated that corporal punishment is harmful to children, and so changed their stance accordingly.

This might blow your mind, but homosexuality was once thought of as a mental disorder, and then when all the evidence accumulated that demonstrated that it is not a mental disorder, the American Psychiatric Association removed it from their diagnostic and statistical manual. This is how good science is done – by following the evidence wherever it may lead. Bad science would be continuing to use a policy that is out-of-date and doesn’t jive with the evidence. This seems to be what you are wanting to do when it comes to corporal punishment.

So, hopefully, you will stop quoting the AAP’s outdated position on this, and start quoting their updated, evidentially-based position on the subject.

Dr Spock came up with the idea of "no spanking" back in 1946 and really came to being in the 1960's.

So, "after years of accumulating data" - that has produced a crazy generation, I am to assume that even though it worked before, now it doesn't? Or is it the accumulation of "Let the child develop by themselves - coddle, cuddle, let them just develop on their own capacity".?

It didn’t “work before.” As already mentioned, and as outlined in the provided article, it was just a socially acceptable thing for a very long time that hitting your kids was good discipline. In other words, it wasn’t an evidentially based position.

I don’t know what all this talk of coddling and cuddling and letting them “develop on their own capacity” is all about or where you came up with it, but it’s not anything anyone I’ve ever seen is suggesting.

By the way, cuddling with your kids is a good thing with positive benefits for both parent and child.

So we have an organization that changes their minds and then, to boot, they have changed their minds on gender identity.

Scientists, academics, etc. are SUPPOSED TO change their minds when faced with evidence that contradicts the view. You say this like it’s a bad thing, but if we did things your way, we could apparently never change our minds on anything, evidence be damned, and just stick to the first thing we thought about something forever and ever. Thankfully, that’s not how science works. That’s not how anybody learns and grows. That’s the perfect way to remain stagnant and ignorant.

Key points that they give:

• The prevalence of gender dysphoria is increasing, and all providers should be prepared to interact with transgender patients.
• Gender-affirming care has been shown to improve health outcomes. The specific treatments recommended vary depending on age and developmental stage.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatriccare/article-abstract/doi/10.1542/aap.ppcqr.396041/122/Gender-Identity?redirectedFrom=fulltext

So, we’re changing subjects now?

So now, whereas before it was gender dysphoria, it is now "normal" and shouldn't be addressed as a psychological issue

Depends on the person and on the situation.

And you want me to accept this organization that changes their mind as the gurus in children?

Yes, I want you to “support an organization” that draws conclusions based on EVIDENCE. And if that evidence changes, or new evidence comes to light to show that a previous conclusion was inaccurate,

Let’s remember here though, YOU’RE the one who brought up the AAP in this conversation and then quoted their old position on the subject.

Illogical.

Totally logical. What would be illogical, would be to stick to your position even in light of a mass of contradictory evidence. As you've done here.

It has become apparent to mean that you don’t seem to understand the scientific method, how it works, and why it works.


Would you prefer that we just stick to the first thing we believed about everything, never budging, or changing our minds when presented with new or contradictory evidence? What good does that do anyone? Oh wait, I just realized you’re projecting again, given that this is exactly what you do. You refuse to reflect upon your beliefs about corporal punishment in light of all evidence that contradicts your beliefs about it. You don’t seem to care what the evidence indicates. You’ve chosen to throw in with the one outlier, that sits in complete opposition to mountains of contradictory data and that’s where you’re going to stay.

Logically, I am going to take the stance that they have become a liberal organization that throws out logic and history for the benefit of a personal viewpoint or a biased agenda.

Ah, yes a liberal conspiracy. Look where we’ve ended up now. At a conspiracy theory. And all because you refuse to acknowledge evidence.

Whistleblower: American Academy of Pediatrics Ignored, Buried Doctors' Major Concerns Over Trans Agenda

You follow poor news sources. That explains quite a bit here, actually.

Indeed, the 30 years ago studies are the ones that worked!

You’ve concluded this based on … what?

And which studies are you referring to?

As the data on my children's rearing and their children's rearing testify.

We are batting 1000.

Data are facts and statistics collected under controlled conditions and calculated using advanced analytic techniques and scientific principles. You don’t have data on your children’s rearing. You have your opinion.

So, you typed out all these words, and not once did you address the fact that the AAP changed their stance based on EVIDENCE. I get it, you won’t change your stance based on the evidence, so you think nobody else should either. But that is folly. It’s not how anybody grows and learns and progresses. And it’s certainly not how science works.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, I want you to “support an organization” that draws conclusions based on EVIDENCE. And if that evidence changes, or new evidence comes to light to show that a previous conclusion was inaccurate,

Let’s remember here though, YOU’RE the one who brought up the AAP in this conversation and then quoted their old position on the subject.

I disagree as stipulated on my first quote which shows why AAP's conclusions were and still are wrong.

Sometimes, the gurus just can't make up their minds:

Eggs are bad — then good — then bad again? What gives? — Diet Doctor

Listen, I know we will disagree but I still stand with loving discipline.

New evidence for the benefits of never spanking - Society 2001
Contentious study says spanking may benefit children 2010

So they vacillate from one end to the other. Somehow with me batting 1000, I will stand by my method

But feel free to raise your children like you want... I'm all for parenting choices.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree as stipulated on my first quote which shows why AAP's conclusions were and still are wrong.

The change on their stance on corporal punishment was an EVIDENCE BASED ONE. And therefore, is not wrong.

YOU are wrong here. YOU refuse to draw conclusions from the evidence, and instead, are drawing conclusions drawn from your personal opinions on the subject.

Sometimes, the gurus just can't make up their minds:

Eggs are bad — then good — then bad again? What gives? — Diet Doctor

I'm not sure you've realized it, but you're making my point for me.

Also, I guess I have to point out yet again, that a single study doesn't really show much. What's needed are several studies, or meta-analyses of prior studies, that are replicable, verifiable and demonstrable and all point to the same conclusion. One study here or there doesn't tell us much.

Listen, I know we will disagree but I still stand with loving discipline.

I don't agree that hitting kids is loving.

New evidence for the benefits of never spanking - Society 2001

Ummmm, it doesn't appear as though you've read even the title of this one.

Contentious study says spanking may benefit children 2010

And this one is the exact same study you've already presented at least twice, and I've already addressed.

So they vacillate from one end to the other. Somehow with me batting 1000, I will stand by my method

Your method has been demonstrated to be harmful to children and yet you stick to it based on your personal opinions. Okay then.

But feel free to raise your children like you want... I'm all for parenting choices.

I'm all for raising physically and mentally healthy, well-adjusted, responsible and productive members of society and so I'm not going to teach them that hitting is how we solve our problems.

 

[Kenny]

The change on their stance on corporal punishment was an EVIDENCE BASED ONE. And therefore, is not wrong.

YOU are wrong here. YOU refuse to draw conclusions from the evidence, and instead, are drawing conclusions drawn from your personal opinions on the subject.

I disagree with your opinion.

I'm not sure you've realized it, but you're making my point for me.

Also, I guess I have to point out yet again, that a single study doesn't really show much. What's needed are several studies, or meta-analyses of prior studies, that are replicable, verifiable and demonstrable and all point to the same conclusion. One study here or there doesn't tell us much.

Hmmm... not really. My point is simply that the gurus go back and forth supporting my position that they may change again.

I don't agree that hitting kids is loving.

I agree with you. Hitting is not loving. Disciplining is.

Ummmm, it doesn't appear as though you've read even the title of this one.

Actually you drew a wrong conclusion (as you have in this aspects). 2001 - Disciplining is wrong. 2010 - New study reverses 2001. 2020 - It is wrong again - 2030 - I will be proven right.

And this one is the exact same study you've already presented at least twice, and I've already addressed.

Which I have addressed too. (You said you couldn't find it and I did it for you)

Your method has been demonstrated to be harmful to children and yet you stick to it based on your personal opinions. Okay then.

No. The study was faulty as I have presented already

I'm all for raising physically and mentally healthy, well-adjusted, responsible and productive members of society and so I'm not going to teach them that hitting is how we solve our problems.

That is good. I am also teaching my children that hitting is not acceptable. However, disciplining them is an important effort as parents.



So we will agree to disagree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree with your opinion.

No. What you disagree with is the vast majority of evidence.

Hmmm... not really. My point is simply that the gurus go back and forth supporting my position that they may change again.

Which ties in with my point about evidence. The same point you've ignored for several posts now.
Let's not pretend like psychiatrists and psychologists are vacillating all over the place on corporal punishment here.
They held a position many years ago, and they've changed in once IN LIGHT OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

I agree with you. Hitting is not loving. Disciplining is.

Nice try, but I already know that "discipline" is your euphemism for "spanking."

Actually you drew a wrong conclusion (as you have in this aspects). 2001 - Disciplining is wrong. 2010 - New study reverses 2001. 2020 - It is wrong again - 2030 - I will be proven right.

What I did was ask you if you even read the title of it because the title is, "New evidence for the benefits of never spanking," and provided zero content. So I have to ask what you are talking about and why you think that backs up your claim that spanking isn't harmful to children. Perhaps you could provide a snippet from that article that backs up your assertions. And then when you're finished with that, find several more studies that show the same evidence and reach the same conclusions. As noted several times, one study doesn't amount to much, on it's own. It needs to be corroborated by more evidence that points to the same conclusion.

Which I have addressed too. (You said you couldn't find it and I did it for you)

No you did not address what I said about it. Rather, you just posted it again as though it was a fresh article you'd never posted before. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't notice.

No. The study was faulty as I have presented already

Pardon? What study? You didn't address the point again.

That is good. I am also teaching my children that hitting is not acceptable. However, disciplining them is an important effort as parents.

And how do you think they will be able to understand that, in light of the fact that you hit them, as a disciplinary measure?
This is apparently how adults solve their problems and disagreements - by hitting each other.
Dad hits us but tells us that hitting is bad. So ... do as I say, not as I do.

Disciplining is a very important part of parenting. But there are a ton of much more effective disciplinary measures that can be taken that don't involve harming kids by physically hitting them.

So we will agree to disagree.

I won't. The evidence is stacked against you. Spanking kids is harmful to them, physically, emotionally and psychologically. You won't ever see me agree with something that does that.

 

[Kenny]

No. What you disagree with is the vast majority of evidence.


Which ties in with my point about evidence. The same point you've ignored for several posts now.
Let's not pretend like psychiatrists and psychologists are vacillating all over the place on corporal punishment here.
They held a position many years ago, and they've changed in once IN LIGHT OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.


Nice try, but I already know that "discipline" is your euphemism for "spanking."

What I did was ask you if you even read the title of it because the title is, "New evidence that
The article you provided was titled, "New evidence for the benefits of never spanking," and provided zero content. So I have to ask what you are talking about and why you think that backs up your claim that spanking isn't harmful to children. Perhaps you could provide a snippet from that article that backs up your assertions. And then when you're finished with that, find several more studies that show the same evidence and reach the same conclusions. As noted several times, one study doesn't amount to much, on it's own. It needs to be corroborated by more evidence that points to the same conclusion.


No you did not address what I said about it. Rather, you just posted it again as though it was a fresh article you'd never posted before. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't notice.


Pardon? What study? You didn't address the point again.


And how do you think they will be able to understand that, in light of the fact that you hit them, as a disciplinary measure?
This is apparently how adults solve their problems and disagreements - by hitting each other.
Dad hits us but tells us that hitting is bad. So ... do as I say, not as I do.

Disciplining is a very important part of parenting. But there are a ton of much more effective disciplinary measures that can be taken that don't involve harming kids by physically hitting them.


I won't. The evidence is stacked against you. Spanking kids is harmful to them, physically, emotionally and psychologically. You won't ever see me agree with something that does that.

Sorry Skeptic. I posted a study by a Psychologist, a detailed post on why the studies are wrong by a Doctor, the history of centuries...

Can't help you any further than that other than... I am happy to support your way of rearing your own children.

Since mine (one has a business - one is in full-time ministry - one works and is touching lives) and all the children are balanced with no depression with two at 18 going to college with great grades... there isn't much you can say since I also have supporting documents and it is working for us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry Skeptic. I posted a study by a Psychologist, a detailed post on why the studies are wrong by a Doctor, the history of centuries...

No, you did not. You posted outdated material and quoted an outdated policy from the AAP.

Can't help you any further than that other than... I am happy to support your way of rearing your own children.

I can't help you either. You seem averse to evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe.

You don't address my points. You don't answer my questions. You ignore the bulk of evidence against your claim and cling to an outlier instead. You keep posting the same article over and over. An article which I've already pointed out to you concludes that hitting teenagers is detrimental to their emotional and psychological well-being. A study that has never been replicated. A study based on self-reporting. A study that is refuted by a massive amount of other replicable studies.

I really wish you understood how science works. Truly.

Since mine (one has a business - one is in full-time ministry - one works and is touching lives) and all the children are balanced with no depression with two at 18 going to college with great grades... there isn't much you can say since I also have supporting documents and it is working for us.

You don't have any supporting documents. Clinging to an outlier in the face of a massive amount of opposing evidence isn't "having support" for your claim. It's willful ignorance.

Again, anecdotes aren't evidence. I really wish you could understand this. "I hit my kids and they turned out fine [according to me]" isn't evidence of anything at all. It's just like, your opinion, man.

 

[Kenny]

No, you did not. You posted outdated material and quoted an outdated policy from the AAP.



I can't help you either. You seem averse to evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe.

You don't address my points. You don't answer my questions. You ignore the bulk of evidence against your claim and cling to an outlier instead. You keep posting the same article over and over. An article which I've already pointed out to you concludes that hitting teenagers is detrimental to their emotional and psychological well-being. A study that has never been replicated. A study based on self-reporting. A study that is refuted by a massive amount of other replicable studies.

I really wish you understood how science works. Truly.

You don't have any supporting documents. Clinging to an outlier in the face of a massive amount of opposing evidence isn't "having support" for your claim. It's willful ignorance.

Again, anecdotes aren't evidence. I really wish you could understand this. "I hit my kids and they turned out fine [according to me]" isn't evidence of anything at all. It's just like, your opinion, man.

Like I said....
#168
How many children, grandchildren do you have?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said....
#168
How many children, grandchildren do you have?

I have a niece and nephew that I was nanny too for the first few years of their lives and spend massive amounts of time with to this day - they are 12 and 13 years old now. I've never laid a hand on them except to hug and kiss them or hold their hand when crossing the street. I never had to resort to hitting them as a method of "discipline" and never would.

I am also a psychology major, so I've got some educated insight into the topic at hand.

My brother-in-law came from a family where his father has physically "disciplined" him by way of making him kneel down on the gravel while he piled textbooks on top of his knees. Why? Because he got a bad grade in school. My brother-in-law has also been punched in the face by his father, also for getting a bad grade in school. And you know what my brother-in-law would say about that, if you asked him? "My dad hit me and I turned out just fine." Meanwhile, he's got antisocial personality disorder which he has been diagnosed with, but refuses to acknowledge, because he "turned out just fine" in his opinion. But he appears successful and happy by your standards - he's got a good job, he's got two beautiful kids, a nice home, a few nice cars, he goes on regular vacations, etc.

I have suffered from panic attacks for at least the last 10 years. In all that time, I have never told my mother about it, despite the fact that we are incredibly close - basically best friends. Why? Because I don't want her to worry about me. She only recently found out about a year ago because I had a panic attack in front of her that I could not control. Otherwise, I would have never told her. She doesn't need that extra worry on her plate, and I don't want her second-guessing how she raised us or what kind of childhood I had (without hitting us, by the way). My point with this is that you don't truly know that hitting your kids worked out just fine. You can't see into their minds. And since we know from the evidence that hitting kids is detrimental to their emotional, physical and psychological well-being, we should err on the side of caution and just get rid of hitting as a disciplinary measure entirely. We have much better methods available to us now.