Spanking Kids in Kansas

[Enai de a lukal]

They are the people who agree with me, if you want numbers then Google it for yourself.

Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of them as time goes on. Scientific evidence condemning a practice that is just sort of icky will tend to do that to its popularity.

 

[Penumbra]

I had a stance in middle school that if anyone hits me, I'd hit them back, and it doesn't matter who. (Was kind of a rough neighborhood.)

It sounds like it wouldn't have gone over well in Kansas.

 

[psychoslice]

Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of them as time goes on. Scientific evidence condemning a practice that is just sort of icky will tend to do that to its popularity.

There are few I admit, but that is going to be the price we will have to pay in the near future, just wait and see.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm sure you can work that out for yourself, whatever I say your not going to agree, so why should I was my time.

I, myself, have nothing to work out. I see you are either afraid to or unable to answer the question.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, because that is what the empirical evidence suggests. I tend to trust evidence and research rather than personal anecdotes and folk psychology.


Right; in the same manner the creationist "sees things differently"- by simply ignoring inconvenient evidence.

The only real function of corporal punishment, at the end of the day, is getting your rocks off by smacking a child- they certainly aren't getting any benefit from it.

And their certainly not getting any benefits from not disciplining them.

 

[Penumbra]

And their certainly not getting any benefits from not disciplining them.

It's kind of sad to see that a person assumes, automatically, that not hitting a child means not disciplining them. It's as though the only two possibilities are not disciplining them or using physical violence, and ignoring all other possible options to actually teach children.

 

[psychoslice]

The reason I do think punishment is good for kid is because of my own experience. My brother who was older than me never got punished as a kid, he was the one who was spoiled. Myself and my sister and younger brother were mostly punish, I was canned at school, and I did deserve it, and I am today glade I was canned, I feel that I became a better person for it.

My older brother as he grew older was always in trouble with the police, and still my parents never disciplined him. By the time he was 14 he was in a boys home which he escaped, but was returned. When he got out of the boys home he got into trouble again, this time for rape, he was only 16 then.

He wanted a car so he told mum and dad that he would leave home if they didn't buy him one, which they did. Being to young to drive he got his friend to drive, on a Saturday afternoon the police came to our house to tell us the my brother was killed in an accident caused by their own selves, which was racing in the back streets where the car rolled and killing my brother.

This is why I feel the way I do about punishing kids who need it. Watching my parents go through life with guilt from buying him that car really stuffed me up. They became alcoholics and died young, I believe with a broken heart.

 

[Penumbra]

The reason I do think punishment is good for kid is because of my own experience. My brother who was older than me never got punished as a kid, he was the one who was spoiled. Myself and my sister and younger brother were mostly punish, I was canned at school, and I did deserve it, and I am today glade I was canned, I feel that I became a better person for it.

My older brother as he grew older was always in trouble with the police, and still my parents never disciplined him. By the time he was 14 he was in a boys home which he escaped, but was returned. When he got out of the boys home he got into trouble again, this time for rape, he was only 16 then.

He wanted a car so he told mum and dad that he would leave home if they didn't buy him one, which they did. Being to young to drive he got his friend to drive, on a Saturday afternoon the police came to our house to tell us the my brother was killed in an accident caused by their own selves, which was racing in the back streets where the car rolled and killing my brother.

This is why I feel the way I do about punishing kids who need it. Watching my parents go through life with guilt from buying him that car really stuffed me up. They became alcoholics and died young, I believe with a broken heart.

So your whole position is based on a sample size of three people, compared to much broader scientific data that says otherwise.

Moreover it's an irrational leap to go from "never got punished as a kid" to think that physical violence is the only useful form of punishment. Again that assumes that physical violence is literally the only form of punishment, or that not using physical violence means not punishing someone, or not giving them consequences for behavior.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And their certainly not getting any benefits from not disciplining them.

Not utilizing corporal punishment isn't the same as not disciplining or educating children, for one thing; one may be using methods that actually work. Ironically however, children who are not disciplined at all are probably better off than children who have been subjected to corporal punishment- neither one really learns anything, and the latter may well be subject to the emotional and mental harm that often accompanies corporal punishment.

Seriously, what does that say, that your preferred method of discipline is actually worse than no discipline at all?

Also, why are you so committed to endorsing corporal punishment that you're willing to ignore evidence, ethics, and common sense? Is it because you feel like opposing it would be betraying your parents and upbringing, or something? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[psychoslice]

So your whole position is based on a sample size of three people, compared to much broader scientific data that says otherwise.

Moreover it's an irrational leap to go from "never got punished as a kid" to think that physical violence is the only useful form of punishment. Again that assumes that physical violence is literally the only form of punishment, or that not using physical violence means not punishing someone, or not giving them consequences for behavior.

Oh well, whatever, it worked for me and my other brother and sister, and what I have observed over the years, and that is all that matters to me personally.

 

[psychoslice]

Not utilizing corporal punishment isn't the same as not disciplining or educating children, for one thing; one may be using methods that actually work. Ironically however, children who are not disciplined at all are probably better off than children who have been subjected to corporal punishment- neither one really learns anything, and the latter may well be subject to the emotional and mental harm that often accompanies corporal punishment.

Seriously, what does that say, that your preferred method of discipline is actually worse than no discipline at all?

Also, why are you so committed to endorsing corporal punishment that you're willing to ignore evidence, ethics, and common sense? Is it because you feel like opposing it would be betraying your parents and upbringing, or something? It just doesn't make any sense.

Like you I strongly feel that how I see it is the best way, given that taking away corporal punishment hasn't worked. The evidence that you keep going on about to me is just not true, take a good look around you, its not that hard to see how everything is going.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh well, whatever, it worked for me and my other brother and sister, and what I have observed over the years, and that is all that matters to me personally.

But don't you think the sincerity and severity of the opposition to corporal punishment maybe warrants looking at the bigger picture, including the (wealth) of evidence that suggests that it just isn't a good method?

 

[psychoslice]

But don't you think the sincerity and severity of the opposition to corporal punishment maybe warrants looking at the bigger picture, including the (wealth) of evidence that suggests that it just isn't a good method?

Well I'll stick to my way of thinking and you stick to yours, only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The evidence that you keep going on about to me is just not true

Do you realize just how much like the plea of the creationist this is? That "the evidence... is just not true", when you're talking about study after study after study?

And how can you say it's "just not true" unless you've actually examined it? For instance, what is wrong with Gershoff's influential study? Or Robinson, Funk, Beth, and Bush's? Or Staus and Yodanis' study on the link between corporal punishment and spousal abuse? Or Turner and Finkelhor's study on the negative impacts of corporal punishment? And on and on and on... Seriously, you're basically trying to claim that 2+2=5.

Given this, we have to wonder; are you maybe just saying "the evidence... is just not true" because the evidence is inconvenient for what you happen to believe, rather than because you have any reason for doubting the evidence?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well I'll stick to my way of thinking and you stick to your, only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

In other words, no, you don't think the matter warrants any reasonable or objective consideration.

Dogmatism at its finest.

 

[psychoslice]

Do you realize just how much like the plea of the creationist this is? That "the evidence... is just not true", when you're talking about study after study after study?

And how can you say it's "just not true" unless you've actually examined it? For instance, what is wrong with Gershoff's influential study? Or Robinson, Funk, Beth, and Bush's? Or Staus and Yodanis' study on the link between corporal punishment and spousal abuse? Or Turner and Finkelhor's study on the negative impacts of corporal punishment? And on and on and on... Seriously, you're basically trying to claim that 2+2=5.

Given this, we have to wonder; are you maybe just saying "the evidence... is just not true" because the evidence is inconvenient for what you happen to believe, rather than because you have any reason for doubting the evidence?

There's evidence for just about anything you want to believe, so it means nothing to me, what I see throughout my life is my evidence, and I'll stick to that thanks.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There's evidence for just about anything you want to believe

No, not really. And very few things admit of as much evidence as the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment does- as in, boatloads of scientific studies that all show more or less the same thing.

If only more things in life were that crystal clear.

so it means nothing to me

Well, it means quite a lot actually- but you have to say this, right? I mean, if you actually looked at the evidence, you may have to admit you were mistaken (*gasp*).

what I see throughout my life is my evidence, and I'll stick to that thanks.

So this is basically an answer to my question- it is not that you have any reasonable basis for doubting the evidence (that you have never bothered to look at in the first place), its just a matter of being selective and stubborn. You ignore the evidence that contradicts what you believe (which is pretty much all of it), and favor your very limited experience, even if this means you have to deny patent fact.

Interesting. Sad... but interesting. Of course, you know what this means, right? You have essentially lost the right to criticize creationists or anyone else for being in denial, dogmatically denying scientific fact, and/or performing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting something they believe is mistaken, because that is precisely what you are doing here.

 

[dust1n]

Oh well, whatever, it worked for me and my other brother and sister, and what I have observed over the years, and that is all that matters to me personally.

Than it wouldn't be too hard to imagine why it matters to no one else.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Than it wouldn't be too hard to imagine why it matters to no one else.

And hopefully he can understand why the rest of us will prefer to go with credible, impartial, scientific studies* rather than personal anecdotes from someone who is clearly anything but impartial.

*Oh, also- common sense.

 

[psychoslice]

No, not really. And very few things admit of as much evidence as the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment does- as in, boatloads of scientific studies that all show more or less the same thing.

If only more things in life were that crystal clear.


Well, it means quite a lot actually- but you have to say this, right? I mean, if you actually looked at the evidence, you may have to admit you were mistaken (*gasp*).


So this is basically an answer to my question- it is not that you have any reasonable basis for doubting the evidence (that you have never bothered to look at in the first place), its just a matter of being selective and stubborn. You ignore the evidence that contradicts what you believe (which is pretty much all of it), and favor your very limited experience, even if this means you have to deny patent fact.

Interesting. Sad... but interesting. Of course, you know what this means, right? You have essentially lost the right to criticize creationists or anyone else for being in denial, dogmatically denying scientific fact, and/or performing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting something they believe is mistaken, because that is precisely what you are doing here.

Quite frankly I don't care if there is this so called scientific evidence or not, I know what I have seen and experience and that is always what I'll stick too, my own experience and observation.