Spanking Kids in Kansas

[Alceste]

Penumbra and Shadow are talking about all spanking, Dawny is talking about the spanking that you've described. (Light, barehand, young kids) Which is not an issue. I may have a more extreme position, but that's neither here nor there.

Spanking is not harmful. That's it.

My ideas are debatable, But that's not what's being talked about.

You keep magically transforming the HIGHLY qualified findings of Gunnoe's outlier study into a blanket statement that "spanking does no harm". That's really dishonest of you, and I wish you would stop doing it. I've already explained three times why Gunnoe's study does NOT say "spanking does no harm."

 

[Thana]

You keep magically transforming the HIGHLY qualified findings of Gunnoe's outlier study into a blanket statement that "spanking does no harm". That's really dishonest of you, and I wish you would stop doing it. I've already explained three times why Gunnoe's study does NOT say "spanking does no harm."

Spanking - The spanking we're all talking about - is the kind of spanking that does no harm.

Hitting your kid hard, hitting them with instruments, is a different story and a different discussion and a different study.

You're the one who keeps dragging up all the old, off-topic stuff.

 

[Alceste]

Spanking - The spanking we're all talking about - is the kind of spanking that does no harm.

Hitting your kid hard, hitting them with instruments, is a different story and a different discussion and a different study.

You're the one who keeps dragging up all the old, off-topic stuff.

That's a tautology. "The type of spanking that does no harm does no harm".

OK, and since the parameters for this kind of spanking are so narrow and "no more harm than not spanking" is such faint praise, how about we just don't bother spanking kids at all?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Penumbra and Shadow are talking about all spanking, Dawny is talking about the spanking that you've described. (Light, barehand, young kids) Which is not an issue. I may have a more extreme position, but that's neither here nor there.

Spanking is not harmful. That's it.

My ideas are debatable, But that's not what's being talked about.

Even striking a child with a "light and barehand" makes me wonder why anyone would want to hit a child? A few studies may be filtered and carefully cherry-picked to show that light, infrequent, and non-emotionally enraged spanking may not be bad; but how many parents fall in this catagory? And still the question is why would anyone ever think it is morally acceptable to hit a child? We aren't supposed to hit each other as adults, and we are far more capable of defending ourselves than a child. So why is it that a defenseless child becomes a socially acceptable target for hitting? Obviously plenty of people turned out alright from being spanked (and blatantly abused in times past), but then again not everyone who has lived in a house with asbestos paint has had asbestos-related medical problems. Some people even smoke their entire lives without any health problems related to smoking. Some rape victims have shown themselves to be highly resilient and quickly recover from a rape. Should these examples, and others, in which a small percentage for one reason or another does not behave like the average be a consideration in all issues?

 

[Thana]

That's a tautology. "The type of spanking that does no harm does no harm".

OK, and since the parameters for this kind of spanking are so narrow and "no more harm than not spanking" is such faint praise, how about we just don't bother spanking kids at all?

I think it has a bit more praise than that, But nevertheless.

Because its a tool that parents use and have the right to use. The effects, whether postive or just simply neutral, Is up to the parents to determine.

 

[Alceste]

Even striking a child with a "light and barehand" makes me wonder why anyone would want to hit a child? A few studies may be filtered and carefully cherry-picked to show that light, infrequent, and non-emotionally enraged spanking may not be bad; but how many parents fall in this catagory? And still the question is why would anyone ever think it is morally acceptable to hit a child? We aren't supposed to hit each other as adults, and we are far more capable of defending ourselves than a child. So why is it that a defenseless child becomes a socially acceptable target for hitting? Obviously plenty of people turned out alright from being spanked (and blatantly abused in times past), but then again not everyone who has lived in a house with asbestos paint has had asbestos-related medical problems. Some people even smoke their entire lives without any health problems related to smoking. Some rape victims have shown themselves to be highly resilient and quickly recover from a rape. Should these examples, and others, in which a small percentage for one reason or another does not behave like the average be a consideration in all issues?

That raises an interesting thought experiment. Let's say you felt highly motivated, for one reason or another, to create a study that shows rape does no harm.

You take your sample group, then weed out anybody except, say, people who were coerced into sex when they didn't really feel like it by a generally considerate long term partner in a drunken stupor due to a regrettable communication breakdown... And kerpow, you've got a study that shows that the type of sexual coercion that does little harm does little harm! Call the right wing press!

Then you can sit back, pour yourself a bourbon, and wait for everyone who wants to go out raping to use your study as CONCLUSIVE evidence that rape is completely harmless!

 

[Thana]

Even striking a child with a "light and barehand" makes me wonder why anyone would want to hit a child?

Lol. I highly doubt anyone here walks around with the desire to hit a child. It's not something you want to do.

A few studies may be filtered and carefully cherry-picked to show that light, infrequent, and non-emotionally enraged spanking may not be bad; but how many parents fall in this catagory?

Please, As if the anti-spanking ones aren't. And I'd say a lot of parents fall into that category.

And still the question is why would anyone ever think it is morally acceptable to hit a child? We aren't supposed to hit each other as adults, and we are far more capable of defending ourselves than a child. So why is it that a defenseless child becomes a socially acceptable target for hitting?

They're children. They need to be taught, To be kept safe. Spanking is a tool used to do this. It's not your responsibility to teach adults, But it is your responsibility to teach and discipline your child.

Obviously plenty of people turned out alright from being spanked (and blatantly abused in times past), but then again not everyone who has lived in a house with asbestos paint has had asbestos-related medical problems. Some people even smoke their entire lives without any health problems related to smoking. Some rape victims have shown themselves to be highly resilient and quickly recover from a rape. Should these examples, and others, in which a small percentage for one reason or another does not behave like the average be a consideration in all issues?

I linked a study a few pages back that showed kids who had been spanked were more likely to be successful than kids who weren't.

Spanking is effective, It's not just something you 'get through' or endure. It's a tool used to teach, And it works.

 

[Alceste]

Lol. I highly doubt anyone here walks around with the desire to hit a child. It's not something you want to do.

Please, As if the anti-spanking ones aren't. And I'd say a lot of parents fall into that category.

They're children. They need to be taught, To be kept safe. Spanking is a tool used to do this. It's not your responsibility to teach adults, But it is your responsibility to teach and discipline your child.

I linked a study a few pages back that showed kids who had been spanked were more likely to be successful than kids who weren't.

Spanking is effective, It's not just something you 'get through' or endure. It's a tool used to teach, And it works.

That is the Gunnoe study, which is an outlier and was INCLUDED in the meta analysis penumbra gave you, which determined unambiguously that the negative outweighs the positive.

 

[Thana]

That is the Gunnoe study, which is an outlier and was INCLUDED in the meta analysis penumbra gave you, which determined unambiguously that the negative outweighs the positive.

Unambiguously? Where did you get that?

Her case was she found "Strong Associations" and her study included harsh/severe spanking which Baurmind addressed -

"The evidence presented in the meta-analysis does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking,"

Not only that, But she admitted that spanking was so far determined to not be negative, But they just didn't have enough evidence to say it had positive effects and that it was up to the parents to determine. Of course, Then she went on to say 'Don't use it' but I wouldn't have expected less from someone with an obvious anti-spanking bias.

 

[Alceste]

Unambiguously? Where did you get that?

Her case was she found "Strong Associations" and her study included harsh/severe spanking which Baurmind addressed -

Not only that, But she admitted that spanking was so far determined to not be negative, But they just didn't have enough evidence to say it had positive effects and that it was up to the parents to determine. Of course, Then she went on to say 'Don't use it' but I wouldn't have expected less from someone with an obvious anti-spanking bias.

I don't think you understand the hierarchy of empirical evidence. One study is an isolated piece of evidence, but far from conclusive. The more studies you have that reach the same conclusion, the stronger your evidence. A meta analysis, which is what penumbra gave you, is a review of multiple studies. They attempt to control for selection bias to ensure all the available evidence of a reasonable quality is considered.

A meta analysis is therefore far superior evidence to a single study. Especially since in this case that one study you are clinging to like the flotsam of the sunken ship of your opinion is included in penumbra's meta analysis.

 

[averageJOE]

Even striking a child with a "light and barehand" makes me wonder why anyone would want to hit a child? A few studies may be filtered and carefully cherry-picked to show that light, infrequent, and non-emotionally enraged spanking may not be bad; but how many parents fall in this catagory? And still the question is why would anyone ever think it is morally acceptable to hit a child? We aren't supposed to hit each other as adults, and we are far more capable of defending ourselves than a child. So why is it that a defenseless child becomes a socially acceptable target for hitting? Obviously plenty of people turned out alright from being spanked (and blatantly abused in times past), but then again not everyone who has lived in a house with asbestos paint has had asbestos-related medical problems. Some people even smoke their entire lives without any health problems related to smoking. Some rape victims have shown themselves to be highly resilient and quickly recover from a rape. Should these examples, and others, in which a small percentage for one reason or another does not behave like the average be a consideration in all issues?

My question is: how and when is it determined to stop spanking a child? Age? What age and why? If a dad can "lightly spank" his child can he "lightly spank" his wife to correct a behavior?

Why is it only small children that some find acceptable to spank? People continue to learn what to do and not to do well into adulthood. Why not use pain to correct adults?

 

[Alceste]

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-1284539.pdf is the link, if you'd care to look for yourself.

 

[Father Heathen]

My question is: how and when is it determined to stop spanking a child? Age? What age and why? If a dad can "lightly spank" his child can he "lightly spank" his wife to correct a behavior?

Why is it only small children that some find acceptable to spank? People continue to learn what to do and not to do well into adulthood. Why not use pain to correct adults?

Why ask something that was already answered earlier in the thread?

 

[dawny0826]

That's a tautology. "The type of spanking that does no harm does no harm".

OK, and since the parameters for this kind of spanking are so narrow and "no more harm than not spanking" is such faint praise, how about we just don't bother spanking kids at all?

You disregard the fact that there are groups of parents who find conditional spanking to be the most conducive form of discipline, given a particular situation. It's not the first resort - it's the last resort, when other forms of discipline have failed.

It's not administered angrily or harshly.

Some of the minds behind the research that are relied upon for these debates, admit that their studies have shortcomings. This does not mean that their studies are irrelevant by any means, as they paint a very clear picture as to the negate impacts that corporal punishment can yield.

There is a significant distinction, however, between conditional spanking and corporal punishment that is implemented in a severe manner without incorporation of other disciplinary tactics.

Source: The case against spanking

The best form of discipline would be that which doesn't involve corporal punishment. However, I'm not of the opinion that a parent who has better success with conditional spanking, should feel guilted by society to change what works best in their household.

I'm inclined to trust my own judgement as a parent, knowing that I have not and will not participate in the spectrum of severe and abusive corporal punishment.

 

[dawny0826]

That raises an interesting thought experiment. Let's say you felt highly motivated, for one reason or another, to create a study that shows rape does no harm.

You take your sample group, then weed out anybody except, say, people who were coerced into sex when they didn't really feel like it by a generally considerate long term partner in a drunken stupor due to a regrettable communication breakdown... And kerpow, you've got a study that shows that the type of sexual coercion that does little harm does little harm! Call the right wing press!

Then you can sit back, pour yourself a bourbon, and wait for everyone who wants to go out raping to use your study as CONCLUSIVE evidence that rape is completely harmless!

I'm not sure that you're accurately representing what actually happened with some of the parenting experts that participated in these studies.

They don't disagree with the research. They would not advocate for corporal punishment or recommend it.

What they acknowledged, Alceste, is that there are people like myself who are not distinguished in these studies from those that utilize corporal punishment as a first choice discipline and/or utilize corporal punishment in a severe and repetitive manner and/or utilize corporal punishment as the only form of discipline.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure that you're accurately representing what actually happened with some of the parenting experts that participated in these studies.

They don't disagree with the research. They would not advocate for corporal punishment or recommend it.

What they acknowledged, Alceste, is that there are people like myself who are not distinguished in these studies from those that utilize corporal punishment as a first choice discipline and/or utilize corporal punishment in a severe and repetitive manner and/or utilize corporal punishment as the only form of discipline.

Many studies do distinguish, though. To paraphrase the AAP meta-analysis, most experts view spanking on a continuum of parenting behavior of increasing violence. All experts agree that the greater the violence, the greater the harm.

All the study Thana put forward did was establish a cut-off point on that spectrum of violence, below which the harm done by a particular level of violence does not appear to be statistically significant.

Now, they do also claim there are benefits, but out of the sample of 160 or so families, only 4% did not spank at all. That's 6 families - an absurdly TINY control group - so I'm highly skeptical of their conclusions vis a vis the "benefits" they claim spanking confers over non-corporal forms of punishment.

 

[dawny0826]

Many studies do distinguish, though. To paraphrase the AAP meta-analysis, most experts view spanking on a continuum of parenting behavior of increasing violence. All experts agree that the greater the violence, the greater the harm.

I have not found a study that distinguishes those parents who utilize conditional spanking from those who utilize repetitive and/or severe spanking.

I would greatly appreciate a resource, as this is precisely, what I've been after.

All the study Thana put forward did was establish a cut-off point on that spectrum of violence, below which the harm done by a particular level of violence does not appear to be statistically significant.

I'm not discussing the articles that Thana posted. I've referenced two links that I shared with you - one of which, I posted twice.

Now, they do also claim there are benefits, but out of the sample of 160 or so families, only 4% did not spank at all. That's 6 families - an absurdly TINY control group - so I'm highly skeptical of their conclusions vis a vis the "benefits" they claim spanking confers over non-corporal forms of punishment.

Respectfully, if benefits were reported and 96% of the group spanks, does that not make you wonder as to the specific type of punishment utilized by those parents?

I have no desire to dispute or sway your skepticism.

I am genuinely curious as to how many of these statistics represent those who utilize a specific form of corporal punishment - CONDITIONAL spanking, which is quite different from the brand of corporal punishment that is more typically - first resort, exclusive, severe and/or repetitive.

 

[Alceste]

I have not found a study that distinguishes those parents who utilize conditional spanking from those who utilize repetitive and/or severe spanking.

I would greatly appreciate a resource, as this is precisely, what I've been after.



I'm not discussing the articles that Thana posted. I've referenced two links that I shared with you - one of which, I posted twice.



Respectfully, if benefits were reported and 96% of the group spanks, does that not make you wonder as to the specific type of punishment utilized by those parents?

I have no desire to dispute or sway your skepticism.

I am genuinely curious as to how many of these statistics represent those who utilize a specific form of corporal punishment - CONDITIONAL spanking, which is quite different from the brand of corporal punishment that is more typically - first resort, exclusive, severe and/or repetitive.

They don't differentiate because differentiating is fundamentally irrational. Your internal dialogue - your own intentions and boundaries - is completely irrelevant to the psychological outcome for the child. They only experience your behavior, not your personal thoughts about it.

And the behavior is hitting.

 

[dawny0826]

They don't differentiate because differentiating is fundamentally irrational. Your internal dialogue - your own intentions and boundaries - is completely irrelevant to the psychological outcome for the child. They only experience your behavior, not your personal thoughts about it.

And the behavior is hitting.

It's not fundamentally irrational to consider significant differences between actions and the impact that those actions may or may not have on those involved.

And either you do not have access to the studies that you've claimed exist or you're blantantly ignoring my request for a source, which, by the way, was genuine.

Catch ya later.

 

[Alceste]

It's not fundamentally irrational to consider significant differences between actions and the impact that those actions may or may not have on those involved.

And either you do not have access to the studies that you've claimed exist or you're blantantly ignoring my request for a source, which, by the way, was genuine.

Catch ya later.

I'm not in the habit of repeatedly posting links that have already been posted several times. Penumbra posted it first, I reposted it very recently - like in the last couple of pages. If you didn't bother clicking it before despite multiple opportunities, I have no reason to suppose you'll suddenly start clicking on it now. I can only conclude that your real intention is to waste my time. Not to actually view the meta-analysis of the effects of corporal punishment that is the one and only reason nobody who read it takes any of your arguments seriously.