Spanking Kids in Kansas

[Mister_T]

I do not tolerate the abuse of adults, you are deliberately kisrepresenting me

I am not blatantly misrepresenting anyone. I'm quoting you directly, word-for-word and presenting it back to you. You are saying these things, not me. If you mean to say something else entirely, then it is your responsibility to convey that in a way people understand.

You are accusing me of being disengenuous without any merit to your accusation.

There is plenty of merit for everyone else to see if they choose to read through the interaction we're having.

There is no double standard, the story you tell of your wife is not the same as smacking children.

Repeatedly asserting that there is no double standard, and smacking children and adults is not the same thing, does not make it anymore true.

The distinction is between consensual and non-consensual physical abuse.

And as I've stated, I gave no "consent" for my wife or anyone to smack my wrist, same with everyone else I know...mostly because the very idea seems rather silly. However given you history with other holes being poked in your arguments, I don't expect you to acknowledge that tidbit, either.

That we clearly disagree

Clearly.

 

[Bunyip]

I am not blatantly misrepresenting anyone. I'm quoting you directly, word-for-word and presenting it back to you. You are saying these things, not me. If you mean to say something else entirely, then it is your responsibility to convey that in a way people understand.

There is plenty of merit for everyone else to see if they choose to read through the interaction we're having.

There is clearly a majority supporting my position here. You are also mistaken - you were not quoting me.

Repeatedly asserting that there is no double standard, and smacking children and adults is not the same thing, does not make it anymore true.

I am confident that the difference between your wife slapping your hand and parents using pain as a training tool for children is abundantly clear to most people. As I have said, the diffence is in the absence of consent and the imbalance of power.

And as I've stated, I gave no "consent" for my wife or anyone to smack my wrist, same with everyone else I know...mostly because the very idea seems rather silly. However given you history with other holes being poked in your arguments, I don't expect you to acknowledge that tidbit, either.

As I said, the consent in this case is that you choose to stay with your wife, and choose to accept her slaps. Children have no such choice, that is the difference.

 

[Mister_T]

There is clearly a majority supporting my position here.

And if being right was determined by how many people agreed with you on a thread in an internet forum, you might have a leg to to stand on with that observation that may or may not be true. Fortunately, facts and reality don't work that way.

You are also mistaken - you were not quoting me.

Silly me, I must be quoting some other person named Bunyip in my posts.

As I have said, the diffence is in the absence of consent and the imbalance of power.

And as I've said, I never gave my wife any such consent. Consent is permission or an agreement between two people, which I never gave or agreed to.

As I said, the consent in this case is that you choose to stay with your wife, and choose to accept her slaps. Children have no such choice, that is the difference.

You stated that any form of corporeal punishment was abuse and was unacceptable, now you're creating your own boundaries as to what "consent" is to avoid tripping over your old statements.

 

[Bunyip]

And if being right was determined by how many people agreed with you on a thread in an internet forum, you might have a leg to to stand on with that observation that may or may not be true. Fortunately, facts and reality don't work that way.

Silly me, I must be quoting some other person named Bunyip in my posts.

There is a big difference between paraphrasing and quoting, I stand by any statement I have made. Post any direct quote from me verbatim and show me where I have been disengenuous or kindly desist from attacking my character.

And as I've said, I never gave my wife any such consent. Consent is permission or an agreement between two people, which I never gave or agreed to.

You stated that any form of corporeal punishment was abuse and was unacceptable, now you're creating your own boundaries as to what "consent" is to avoid tripping over your old statements.

You are being unnecessarily rude, aggressive and condescending. I have made a consistent case and take great pains to be honest.

Consent need not be stated, you consent to your wife's behaviour whether you state it or not. Your consent is implicit in the fact that you freely accept her behaviour. My statements have been entirely cohesive - yes corporal punishment is abuse. And yes, your wife slapping your hand is different from corporal punishment of children.

You are focussed on attacking and belittling my character, rather than debate. Please re-think your approach.

 

[Mister_T]

Post any direct quote from me verbatim and show me where I have been disengenuous or kindly desist from attacking my character.

Thing is, I've already quoted you verbatim and explained where you've been disingenuous multiple times and now you've turned it into an "attack on you" somehow. It's not an attack on your character, it's an observation of how you're presenting yourself in this thread. Somehow, I don't think you are actually interested in pointing out any disingenuous posts of yours at this point.

You are being unnecessarily rude, aggressive and condescending. I have made a consistent case and take great pains to be honest.

Being "rude" and pointing out inconsistencies in your own arguments that you yourself are presenting are two different things. I have been doing the latter, albeit with some frustration. Someone pointing out your inconsistencies is something you apparently do not seem to care for.

Consent need not be stated, you consent to your wife's behaviour whether you state it or not.

But that is not the definition of "consent":

con·sent


noun
noun: consent; plural noun: consents
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

verb
verb: consent; 3rd person present: consents; past tense: consented; past participle: consented; gerund or present participle: consenting
1.
give permission for something to happen.

My statements have been entirely cohesive - yes corporal punishment is abuse. And yes, your wife slapping your hand is different from corporal punishment of children.

Only it is different and I've already explained why. I can't make you see that it's different on the other hand, so we're just going in circles at this point.

You are focussed on attacking and belittling my character, rather than debate.

You do not seem interested in an actual debate this point, you only seem interested in "winning" this argument by any means necessary, as I can see with this last statement.

Once again, no one is "belittling you," it's an observation of how you're presenting yourself in this thread, but much like other posts, you managed to turn that into a strawman fallacy as well. I will not attack or belittle anyone, but I will be blunt and upfront with a person when I perceive dishonest debate tactics being used.

Please re-think your approach.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to rethink their approach or re-read their own posts to see how they're coming across?

It's pretty obvious with your last few comments that this debate is going nowhere fast, so I will leave you with your opinions and I will still hold fast to mine. Thankfully, my opinions are pretty much reflected in the laws where I live, so that is satisfactory enough for me.

 

[Bunyip]

Thing is, I've already quoted you verbatim and explained where you've been disingenuous multiple times and now you've turned it into an "attack on you" somehow. It's not an attack on your character, it's an observation of how you're presenting yourself in this thread. Somehow, I don't think you are actually interested in pointing out any disingenuous posts of yours at this point.

No you have not. That is why I asked you to quote me directly. I have no intention of being disengenuous and have been perfectly consistent.

Being "rude" and pointing out inconsistencies in your own arguments that you yourself are presenting are two different things. I have been doing the latter, albeit with some frustration. Someone pointing out your inconsistencies is something you apparently do not seem to care for.

I have asked you to point out specifically where I have been inconsistant, I have been perfectly consistent. Thag you disagree with me does not constitute any failure on my part.

But that is not the definition of "consent":

There is nothing in that definition that suggests consent must be spoken, you consent by your acceptance of your wifes behaviour.

Only it is different and I've already explained why. I can't make you see that it's different on the other hand, so we're just going in circles at this point.

You do not seem interested in an actual debate this point, you only seem interested in "winning" this argument by any means necessary, as I can see with this last statement.

Once again, no one is "belittling you," it's an observation of how you're presenting yourself in this thread, but much like other posts, you managed to turn that into a strawman fallacy as well. I will not attack or belittle anyone, but I will be blunt and upfront with a person when I perceive dishonest debate tactics being used.

And yet you refuse to identify where I have been dishonest, largely because I have not been dishonest.

Your critique relies entirely on your misconception that consent needs to be specifically verbalised, which is not true.

Attacking me and falsely accusing me of dishonesty is not winning a debate mate, it's using your status here to bully somebody.

If your wife really is striking you without your consent (which I find hard to believe, and imagine would get you a lot of laughs), and those strikes are intended to discipline you with pain - then it is indeed physical abuse. Physical abuse of an incredibly inconsequential nature, and that you could easily prevent - but still physical abuse. I suspect she is just playing with you.

 

[dawny0826]

I wish to further this by saying that I do think that anyone who feels that children need to feel "pain" in order to learn their lesson, or those who use or condone using belts, wooden spoons, canes, etc. are indeed abusing and beating their children.

Most level-headed people who utilize a form of physical discipline do not do so to hurt their children.

My mother used a wooden paddle and spoon on me and I was far from abused as a kid.

You could certainly hold the opinion that I was abused as a child and I would be of the opinion that you're very wrong.

 

[Alceste]

Most level-headed people who utilize a form of physical discipline do not do so to hurt their children.

My mother used a wooden paddle and spoon on me and I was far from abused as a kid.

You could certainly hold the opinion that I was abused as a child and I would be of the opinion that you're very wrong.

I think the word "abused" and "abuser" has too much baggage. I've been sticking to the phrase "abusive behavior". I believe nobody is completely innocent of ever having engaged in abusive behavior at some point in their lives. So I'm not trying to categorize people into abusers and non-abusers, abused and non-abused. We've all been cruel to others at some point and we've all been the victim of cruelty.

What I'm hoping to get across is the recognition that, however well intended, teaching discipline to ANYONE through the intentional application of pain is cruel and unnecessary - unless it's some kind of kink that consenting adults are engaged in.

I honestly don't think my position is a difficult one to identify with. Most people already feel this way about OTHER people's kids - they'd never hit or spank someone else's children - they just apply a whole different set of ethics for THEIR kids. The irrationality of that gets under my skin.

That said, the specific spanking incident you described is not likely to cause long term psychological harm according to the studies I've read and so is not the kind I'm concerned about. Whipping children with belts and hitting them with objects, or using physical discipline on kids who are old enough to reason and communicate, is more what I'm hoping to persuade people against because it is correlated with psychological harm.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some countries allow their citizens to use corporal punishment on their children
Some even allow it upon the women folk.

However this neither makes it right nor an effective form of discipline.
There are no statistics nor modern study to show that is ever the most effective option.

In all countries with a modern ethical approach to child rearing and education, it is classed as abuse and is illegal.

Some people seem to be happy to be classed as abusers.

 

[Alceste]

Some countries allow their citizens to use corporal punishment on their children
Some even allow it upon the women folk.

However this neither makes it right nor an effective form of discipline.
There are no statistics nor modern study to show that is ever the most effective option.

In all countries with a modern ethical approach to child rearing and education, it is classed as abuse and is illegal.

Some people seem to be happy to be classed as abusers.

If this thread is any indication, they are not happy about it at all.

 

[beenie]

I think the word "abused" and "abuser" has too much baggage. I've been sticking to the phrase "abusive behavior". I believe nobody is completely innocent of ever having engaged in abusive behavior at some point in their lives. So I'm not trying to categorize people into abusers and non-abusers, abused and non-abused. We've all been cruel to others at some point and we've all been the victim of cruelty.

What I'm hoping to get across is the recognition that, however well intended, teaching discipline to ANYONE through the intentional application of pain is cruel and unnecessary - unless it's some kind of kink that consenting adults are engaged in.

I honestly don't think my position is a difficult one to identify with. Most people already feel this way about OTHER people's kids - they'd never hit or spank someone else's children - they just apply a whole different set of ethics for THEIR kids. The irrationality of that gets under my skin.

That said, the specific spanking incident you described is not likely to cause long term psychological harm according to the studies I've read and so is not the kind I'm concerned about. Whipping children with belts and hitting them with objects, or using physical discipline on kids who are old enough to reason and communicate, is more what I'm hoping to persuade people against because it is correlated with psychological harm.

Yep, this is pretty much my stance as well, and I too have been very careful with my wording to differentiate between "abuser" and "abusive behavior". Not once have I called anyone an abuser.

 

[Alceste]

Yep, this is pretty much my stance as well, and I too have been very careful with my wording to differentiate between "abuser" and "abusive behavior". Not once have I called anyone an abuser.

Nor me. In my family, though my mom doled out a spanking or two, my father's overall behavior was far more abusive. My mother realized corporal punishment was wrong and all her instincts were against it, so she repented, apologized and changed her behavior. My father had an unpredictable temper, and he often blew up and said intentionally hurtful things for no reason, with the effect that I felt I was walking on eggshells all the time as a child, and generally wanted to be anywhere but at home. But he only swatted me once. Then he felt bad about it, but couldn't bring himself to repent or apologize. His behavior remained abusive, although he didn't swat me again.

One of the main reasons I oppose physical discipline is not that I want to keep good parents like my mother from making reasonable disciplinary decisions independently. I want to ensure terrible parents like my father don't have carte blanche to arbitrarily dole out a smack whenever they're feeling annoyed, angry or overwhelmed.

 

[Father Heathen]

I want to ensure terrible parents like my father don't have carte blanche to arbitrarily dole out a smack whenever they're feeling annoyed, angry or overwhelmed.

What does randomly smacking a child for no reason, which no one would dispute was abuse, have to do with spanking as a form of punishment?

 

[Father Heathen]

Some countries allow their citizens to use corporal punishment on their children
Some even allow it upon the women folk.

"Some countries don't allow children to drive. Some don't even allow women to drive."

Some people seem to be happy to be classed as abusers.

Actually, I don't image people are happy about being misclassified. It diminishes the gravity of the word to use it so lightly and to compare a simple spanking to real, actual abuse. If fact, I imagine the victims of abuse probably wouldn't appreciate it.

 

[dawny0826]

I think the word "abused" and "abuser" has too much baggage. I've been sticking to the phrase "abusive behavior". I believe nobody is completely innocent of ever having engaged in abusive behavior at some point in their lives. So I'm not trying to categorize people into abusers and non-abusers, abused and non-abused. We've all been cruel to others at some point and we've all been the victim of cruelty.

The categorization is still there.

My mother utilized corporeal punishment without apology. You yourself have deemed painful discipline to be abusive.

By your own logic, my mother would be abusive. Getting popped by a fly swat for being a dirt bag hurt. Her primary intention was to drive home the point that what I was doing was unacceptable. The action resulted in brief pain.

What I'm hoping to get across is the recognition that, however well intended, teaching discipline to ANYONE through the intentional application of pain is cruel and unnecessary - unless it's some kind of kink that consenting adults are engaged in.

What I'm hoping to get across is that not all who are spanked, swatted or paddled were/are abused.

I'm kind of thinking that you get that.

But, then, you make comments that any pain deliberately inflicted upon a child is abusive.

I honestly don't think my position is a difficult one to identify with. Most people already feel this way about OTHER people's kids - they'd never hit or spank someone else's children - they just apply a whole different set of ethics for THEIR kids. The irrationality of that gets under my skin.

I'm not responsible for your children and the choices that they make. Even if in my care, I have no obligation to nurture their character and would in fact, consider it an overstep to attempt to do so.

If I discipline my children, through whatever means, my objective is to do what's in their best interest because I'm deeply invested in their future. I trust that you do the same for your own children.

I don't think this is irrational by any means. It's called being a parent.

That said, the specific spanking incident you described is not likely to cause long term psychological harm according to the studies I've read and so is not the kind I'm concerned about.

As verified by the expert, right?

Whipping children with belts and hitting them with objects, or using physical discipline on kids who are old enough to reason and communicate, is more what I'm hoping to persuade people against because it is correlated with psychological harm.

This is certainly not the type of discipline that I've been talking about or that Thana was even talking about.

We both referenced utilizing corporeal discipline within the context of correcting an unsafe or dangerous behavior or when other forms of discipline have failed.

Here's the thing, even those in my peer group who utilize corporeal discipline on a much more regular basis than I do, choose it because, within the context of the situation, they deem the punishment to be best suited given the behavior.

In other words, you're probably concerned needlessly about a lot of parents and their kids.

 

[Alceste]

What does randomly smacking a child for no reason, which no one would dispute was abuse, have to do with spanking as a form of punishment?

You think parents who have anger management issues and a somewhat malicious nature aren't going to use corporal punishment if it is considered socially acceptable?

They do, and they even have "reasons" that such discipline is necessary at any given time. It's just that those reasons are not reasonable. For example, my single smack from my dad was "because" I said "Can you pass the salt, please" instead of "would you pass the salt, please" at the supper table. He had his reason - I was using grammar in an undisciplined way.

 

[Alceste]

The categorization is still there.

My mother utilized corporeal punishment without apology. You yourself have deemed painful discipline to be abusive.

By your own logic, my mother would be abusive. Getting popped by a fly swat for being a dirt bag hurt. Her primary intention was to drive home the point that what I was doing was unacceptable. The action resulted in brief pain.



What I'm hoping to get across is that not all who are spanked, swatted or paddled were/are abused.

I'm kind of thinking that you get that.

But, then, you make comments that any pain deliberately inflicted upon a child is abusive.



I'm not responsible for your children and the choices that they make. Even if in my care, I have no obligation to nurture their character and would in fact, consider it an overstep to attempt to do so.

If I discipline my children, through whatever means, my objective is to do what's in their best interest because I'm deeply invested in their future. I trust that you do the same for your own children.

I don't think this is irrational by any means. It's called being a parent.



As verified by the expert, right?



This is certainly not the type of discipline that I've been talking about or that Thana was even talking about.

We both referenced utilizing corporeal discipline within the context of correcting an unsafe or dangerous behavior or when other forms of discipline have failed.

Here's the thing, even those in my peer group who utilize corporeal discipline on a much more regular basis than I do, choose it because, within the context of the situation, they deem the punishment to be best suited given the behavior.

In other words, you're probably concerned needlessly about a lot of parents and their kids.

I'm not concerned about the parents at all, actually, I'm concerned about the kids, and the reason I am concerned is that multiple studies have found that corporal punishment is strongly linked to psychological problems later in life. Also, NO studies show that it is in the least bit beneficial except under very strict parameters, and that's just one study among many that disagree.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm not concerned about the parents at all, actually, I'm concerned about the kids, and the reason I am concerned is that multiple studies have found that corporal punishment is strongly linked to psychological problems later in life. Also, NO studies show that it is in the least bit beneficial except under very strict parameters, and that's just one study.

Is a parent who chooses corporeal discipline because they consider it to be the best course of action given a situation - abusive?

 

[Father Heathen]

You think parents who have anger management issues and a somewhat malicious nature aren't going to use corporal punishment if it is considered socially acceptable?

They do, and they even have "reasons" that such discipline is necessary at any given time. It's just that those reasons are not reasonable. For example, my single smack from my dad was "because" I said "Can you pass the salt, please" instead of "would you pass the salt, please" at the supper table. He had his reason - I was using grammar in an undisciplined way.

So we shouldn't allow things that might be done improperly and inappropriately? Physical abuse is already illegal.

 

[Alceste]

Is a parent who chooses corporeal discipline because they consider it to be the best course of action given a situation - abusive?

The behavior itself (hitting others) is abusive. Everyone who hits somebody considers it the best course of action at the time. The girl who slapped me on the street for making a joke that offended her obviously considered it the best course of action at the time (though probably not a few seconds later when I defended myself).

I am distinguishing between abusive BEHAVIOR, of which we are all capable at some point in our lives, and abusive PEOPLE. I don't think "abusive" is a primary defining characteristic of most people, so I wouldn't come up with that phrase myself.

Most people want to be decent, do their best to be decent, and generally believe they are succeeding.