How should parents be allowed to punish their children? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14891425
Many respected psychological research centres disagree with corporal punishment. My school is forbidden by law from hitting me, but due to the outdated laws in Australia - my parents can (but they don't, and didn't when I was young).

A growing body of research has shown that spanking and other forms of physical discipline can pose serious risks to children, but many parents aren’t hearing the message.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

There have now been hundreds of high-quality spanking research studies with a wide variety of samples and study designs. Over time, the quality of this research has improved to include better spanking measures and more sophisticated research designs and statistical methods.

The scientific evidence from these studies has consistently shown that spanking is related to harmful outcomes for children.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/researchers-say-there-is-no-evidence-spanking-guides-children-but-there-is-plenty-linking-it-to-behavioural-problems/news-story/021c9e8f79ae447751c13fdd21a144ec

The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties, according to a new meta-analysis of 50 years of research on spanking by experts at The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan.

The study, published in this month’s Journal of Family Psychology, looks at five decades of research involving over 160,000 children. The researchers say it is the most complete analysis to date of the outcomes associated with spanking, and more specific to the effects of spanking alone than previous papers, which included other types of physical punishment in their analyses.
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers

In terms of whether parental aggression (spanking) decreases aggression in the child, the answer is no. In fact, spanking tends to increase child aggression: “Spanking predicted increases in children’s aggression over and above initial levels [of aggressive behavior]” and “in none of these longitudinal studies did spanking predict reductions in children’s aggression over time” (p. 134). Instead, spanking predicted increases in children’s aggression.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids

Spanking erodes developmental growth in children and decreases a child's IQ, a recent Canadian study (link is external) shows.

This analysis, conducted at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, offers new evidence that corporal punishment causes cognitive impairment and long-term developmental difficulties.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201202/how-spanking-harms-the-brain

Research provides a wealth of information about the less immediate effects of corporal punishment. Among many other things, we know that corporally punishing a child is more likely to result in mental health problems in the future; that child is more likely to become aggressive, have impaired cognitive development and a negative relationship with his or her parents.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-long-term-impact-of-corporal-punishment-20150505-ggurdb.html
#14891430
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Why wouldn't I agree to this? Thats why I do it. :eh:

The entire premise of spanking is that a controlled form of violence and a limited amount of pain will result from disobedience, deceit, destruction, or disrespect.

Violence is a good means of resolving disputes (I don't see how this is really debatable): War is a case-in-point, but I am also an advocate of teaching your children, early on, how to fight. Fighting saved my life in high school, in fact, I almost became a school shooter myself if it weren't for the intervention of my father teaching me how to defend myself with my fists. I thank God every day for that man. This is a case where allowing masculine and violent conflict resolution can prevent extreme build-ups of non-diffused hatred which, once it spills over, could lead to mass-murder.

Fighting is natural, human, and healthy in my opinion. If my boys want to duke it out when they are teenagers, i'll send them into the backyard and make some simple rules and let them hash it out, and then it will be over. They'll live and when they get older no one will fuck with them.

Some of my best friends in high school were my former bullies, that after I kicked their ass, respected me and brought me into their in-group. Imagine if I never had those fights? I could have shot those guys out of hatred for all the terrible things they had done to me.....I prefer the fighting and hitting.


Logically, this would then mean that you support Cruz, the attacker, in the latest school shooting fiasco. He used violence to resolve his problems. That was, after all, the context in which we are discussing this. Obviously, you do not, but Cruz was punishing kids for breaking the rules by shooting them, which is what spanking teaches us: that acting violently towards children is a useful and rational way of dealing with kids who break the rules.

Also, your personal anecdote also supports the claim that this sort of violence makes people more likely to be violent, seeing as how you chose violence to resolve your conflicts, and one of the violent options you considered was shooting everyone.

....and this horseshit, fallacy of the false equivalency.

Not all violence is the same, just as not all wars are the same.


Decky was discussing how this leads to school shootings, and you agreed, and then I agreed with you.

This is the context of our discussion.

Here are examples of morally justifiable violence:

1. Warfare done to end a genocide or defend your nation from invasion is morally justified violence.

2. Defending yourself from bullies is morally justified violence.

3. Executing a heinous mass-murdering child-rapist is morally justified violence.

4. Swatting a dog with a newspaper for shitting on your new carpet is morally justified violence.

5. Spanking your kid for trying to push his sibling onto a busy highway is morally justified violence.

What is not? Here is another list:

1. Shooting innocent people because your bat-shit crazy is NOT morally justified violence. (the fact that you would equate this to spanking is incredibly ignorant).

2. Beating your kid with a well-chain (like how my grand-dad was abused) for accidentally spilling his sippy cup is NOT morally justified violence. (note: no one is defending this sort of shit)

3. Punching someone in the face because you don't like his ideas is NOT morally justified violence (though you would probably be fine with punching "racists" solely in light of their views)

4. Invading a peaceful nation to genocide them for no reason other than your don't like their hair color is NOT morally justified violence.


Your opinions on what is and what is not morally justifiable are not the discussion. I also believe that some types of violence are morally justified and some are not. We also differ in opinion when it comes to which types are morally defensible. Since no one is arguing that violence is never the solution, this seems like an irrelevant tangent.

The question is whether or not hitting kids is morally defensible. We obviously disagree.

Also, as an aside, the Abrahamic faiths (and I believe Confucianism too if I am not mistaken) all require their practitioners to spank their children by divine or moral command, this is also a religious freedom issue, and the majority of mankind affirms these religions which teach such regarding child discipline.


We often ban religious practices if they can be shown to be detrimental to the people affected by them. This is no different.

Also, anecdotally, I have NEVER met a kid who was not smacked as a kid that did not turn out to be a spoiled and disrespectful little shit. Ultimately this seems to be because the parents cannot effectively coerce them to behave and as they get older they lack respect.

Typical modern parent-child conversation:

Dad: "Johnny, go sit in the corner"

Johnny: "NO!" (this is where it would have ended in my house, "No" is an automatic ass-smack)

Dad: "Johnny, Go sit in the corner!"

Johnny: "No, You can't make me!"

Dad: "Well....um...I will hold you in the corner" (besides being an inconvenient surrender to a fucking child, could also be a form of violence and is definitely a form of coercion and WTF else are you going to do?).

or you don't do anything except threaten not to give them dessert, or take their games or something like that.....but some kids don't give a fuck, then what?

I find parents with high-strung kids are always yelling and not getting shit done, there is a reason for this.


Well, this is probably just observer bias, so I will simply ignore it.

I have met many well behaved kids who were never spanked. And since the link between spanking and violent behaviour is well established, this belief of yours is contradicted by science.

Also, I tend not to arbitrarily want kids to sit in a corner for no reason. So I don’t need a way to force them to do this.

If you take away spanking, or any form of controlled violence, then you invariably remove parental coercion and you fail to teach children the seriousness of criminal activity (which is taught as a microcosm in the home).


Do you really find it impossible to outsmart or overpower a kid without hitting them? Because that is all I ever needed to get a kid to stop doing something dangerous.

To be honest, I hardly have to spank anymore because when I did it with the older ones, it was consistent enough and serious enough that they entered into good behavior that the younger ones follow now out of habit. Spanking must be more often and more serious with the old ones and started very early, then as your family gets older and larger, spanking will only have to be done rarely for the most serious infractions. Hell, my butt-cheeks still pucker when my old man raises his voice and hes in his fucking 60s. The old codger still scares me and would still scare me if I was an MMA champion.

My three oldest are 8, 6, and 4 (just turned 5). They put all the groceries away, completely care for the dog and the chickens (I mean completely), they wash, dry, and put away the dishes, they run the washer and the dryer, set the table, and do all their school work, and they always clean up their messes and they do this without me having to be asked twice. This is in spite of the fact that they are hyper, stubborn, and poor-tempered like their parents. How is this accomplished? Because they know the seriousness of the consequences....but also, because they know that good behavior is as much rewarded as bad behavior is punished.


These seem like personal anecdotes, so while I understand why you believe them, I hope you understand why I do not. Obviously, I have anecdotes that contradict your anecdotes and since neither are verifiable, it makes no sense to introduce these into our discussion.

When my dad was a kid, they respected their teachers and feared them because if you misbehaved you would get paddled, then the principal would paddle you, and then when you got home your parents paddled you. So, you didn't try to piss off your teachers in school just for the fun of it.

Nowadays, kids can stay on their smart-phones in class (at the school I went to, the teachers are not permitted to confiscate the phone) and they can basically tell the teachers to fuck off.

I'm sorry, but since spanking has declined, terrible instances of hazing, bullying, dis-repecting elders and teachers, and yes even school-shootings, have ALL increased, not decreased, so for you to make such a correlation is incredibly irresponsible and its more likely the opposite.

Take a big whiff POD....do you smell that? Its called common-sense and it has worked in parenting for 6,000 years of using physical discipline on children. Lets not reinvent the wheel on this one because some lib-tard hippy-dippy psychologists want to weaponize science against our boys. I see the world their expertise has built.... Fuck them.


    Nationally, though, most experts say it’s clear that school violence is on the decline even if that’s not the public perception. “In general, schools are far safer now than they were 20 years ago,” said Dewey Cornell, a clinical psychologist and education professor at the University of Virginia. “Every major study in recent years has shown that schools are much safer than the communities around them. Students are much more likely to be injured in restaurants than on school grounds.”

    Stephen Brock, a professor at California State University, Sacramento, who has studied school violence, said that the pervasive media coverage of school shootings and other violence has led to misperceptions about danger in schools. “So much of this kind of news coverage has led many people to conclude that schools are horribly flawed, violent institutions,” Brock said. “But if you take a step back, what you will find is that the overall rate of violence in schools is declining.”

    The 2015 Indicators of School Crime and Safety Report, an annual study produced by the National Center for Education Statistics released in May of this year, found that between 1992 and 2014, the number of students who were victims of crimes at school declined 82 percent, from 181 incidents per 1,000 students in 1992 to 33 incidents per 1,000 students in 2014.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ce/488945/

So, you are incorrect. Violence is decreasing.

——————————

Godstud wrote:I think the presumption is that people who spank their kids ONLY use spanking as a punishment. This couldn't be further from the truth. If you know anything about management, you know that there is Persuasion, Coercion, and finally Threat. This applies to children, as well. Spanking is the final gambit, as it were, not the only punishment. When used as the ONLY disciplinary measure, then YES, it is going to be terrible.

I still disagree with what you've posted @Pants-of-dog if only because experience has showed me otherwise, and puts your studies into question.


As I said before, the negative impacts will get worse in direct proportion with the frequency and severity of spankings.

G wrote: Image


No, it is not a strawman since I am following the logic of the post made by @Decky, which is the post to which VS responded.

Now, obviously VS does not actually support Cruz and his ilk, but people who support spanking support a disciplinary method that is associated with these kinds of anti-social and violent behaviours.

Also, the logic is clear: if you teach a kid that violence is a good and useful way to punish people or modify their behaviour, then it makes to sense that this same kid will choose violence when he is bullied at school, as a way of punishing and disciplining his tormentors.

—————————-

Victoribus Spolia wrote:There is a bias among cosmopolitian psychologists against traditional practices and their samples are misleading.


This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, unless you can provide evidence for this supposed bias.

Firstly, all of the anti-spanking studies justify their conclusion in that the children grow up believing that violence can be appropriate: So what? This begs the questions as to whether violence can ever be appropriate and so their study assumes that all violence is automatically wrong to draw its conclusion instead of proving that premise.


I doubt this very much.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/

This meta-analysis focuses on what it calls anti-social behaviour. I highly doubt they see defending the weak from bullies as “anti-social behaviour” even if it involves physical violence. It also defines delinquency as one of these negative impacts, and not violence in general. If the child’s level of violence is high enough that the authorities are involved, that rules out a lot of violence already.

Also, these studies omit studies that show that the so-called negative effects of spanking depended on the parental environment in which spanking occurred. Which should be obvious, but these agenda-driven folks decided to cherry pick.


The cited meta-analysis above cites studies that control for the following factors:

    One of the first large prospective studies (1997, n = 807) controlled for initial levels of child antisocial behaviour and sex, family socioeconomic status and levels of emotional support and cognitive stimulation in the home.11 Even with these controls, physical punishment between the ages of six and nine years predicted higher levels of antisocial behaviour two years later. Subsequent prospective studies yielded similar results, whether they controlled for parental age, child age, race and family structure;12 poverty, child age, emotional support, cognitive stimulation, sex, race and the interactions among these variables;13 or other factors.14–17 These studies provide the strongest evidence available that physical punishment is a risk factor for child aggression and antisocial behaviour.

See pages 4 and 5 of 20.

Here is the REAL data:

http://goodparent.org/corporal-punishme ... -spanking/


Dr. Turnbull, the author of the argument that you have copied and pasted, is incorrect.

Let us look at his very first claim: “The two-swat spank procedure was found to be the most effective, most preferred and most practical of all measures tested”.

Now, ignoring the fact that this study focuses on non-compliant children who were referred by clinics and is therefore probably not a good guide for regular kids, Roberts does not even say what Turnbull claims he says:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9405803296

    Mothers of noncompliant, clinic-referred preschool children were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 chair timeout (TO) enforcement procedures: Spank, Hold, Barrier, or Child Release. Standardized Forehand compliance training was implemented. Hold procedures were associated with less compliance criterion performance and excessive TO escape efforts. Child Release procedures were associated with excessive TOs. Neither Hold nor Child Release procedures are recommended. Barrier and Spank procedures appeared equally effective, replicating prior studies. The importance of monitoring and adjusting initial clinic TO enforcement procedures was documented. Noncompliant children who resisted TO displayed significantly less improvement in compliance than noncompliant children who accepted TO. Group data were obtained in the home setting across a four-week period. Most children displayed near-zero levels of TO resistance within 3 weeks in the home.

There is obviously a difference between “spanking was more effective than anything else” and “we found that barrier is just as good as spanking”.

The second source cited by Turnbull is also a book specifically for children with behavioural disorders. My children do not have behavioural disorders. It makes no sense to treat them as if they do.

The best is his third source which oh so coincidentally finds that parents can be grouped into the exact same groups as those mentioned in the book he is promoting, and the most successful group is (surprise, surprise) the one that follows his book as closely as possible!

Buy your copy today! http://goodparent.org/love-them-lead-them/

I find that I trust the meta-analysis more than I trust the guy trying to sell me something.

Or you can just note that @Paddy14 has already provided studies that contradict and outnumber the studies Turnbull cited.
#14891444
If spanking a child means they will grow up to believe shooting their classmates is acceptable then not spanking a child will result in them growing up to be absolutist pacifists who refuse to report crimes to the police. That's the corollary to the school shooter argument.

I suppose if a child sees me spank a dog for shitting in my house they will also think shooting their peers is a good way to resolve disputes.
#14891458
AFAIK wrote:If spanking a child means they will grow up to believe shooting their classmates is acceptable then not spanking a child will result in them growing up to be absolutist pacifists who refuse to report crimes to the police.
QFT. @Pants-of-dog that was what I believe was the strawman.

Thinking that a few spankings will make your kid think shooting people is OK, is absurd. Why have I not shot anyone, then? Miracle?

Do Canadians spank their kids less? Is there some evidence to support this reasoning behind the shootings? Do the English and Australians spank their kids less, and that's why there are less shootings? I do not buy it.
#14891513
AFAIK wrote:If spanking a child means they will grow up to believe shooting their classmates is acceptable then not spanking a child will result in them growing up to be absolutist pacifists who refuse to report crimes to the police. That's the corollary to the school shooter argument.

I suppose if a child sees me spank a dog for shitting in my house they will also think shooting their peers is a good way to resolve disputes.


Perhaps I should be more clear:

Spanking will not inevitably lead to school shootings. Spankings teach that violence is an acceptable way of discipline for unruly kids. The more you spank kids, the more you reinforce this. School shootings by kids who have been bullied are killing people partly because they feel that no one else is disciplining these bullies and so they have to do it.

Secondly, that corollary does not make sense. The logical corollary is that kids who are hit less are less likely to see violence as the preferred solution or be anti-social or delinquent.

--------------

Godstud wrote:QFT. @Pants-of-dog that was what I believe was the strawman.

Thinking that a few spankings will make your kid think shooting people is OK, is absurd. Why have I not shot anyone, then? Miracle?

Do Canadians spank their kids less? Is there some evidence to support this reasoning behind the shootings? Do the English and Australians spank their kids less, and that's why there are less shootings? I do not buy it.


I am not claiming that spanking is the only cause of school shootings. I am pointing out that the rationale behind spanking is that violence is a good solution and that school shooters have embraced this lesson.

Obviously, school shootings are a product of many different factors and it is even possible that kids who were never spanked would also shoot up a school. There are obviously cultural factors unique to the US that also cause these shootings.

In other countries, this tendency to violence, anti-social behaviour, and delinquency would manifest in other ways such as bullying or spousal assault.
#14891535
Disciplining children is easy without having to assault them. I've heard people saying "it's just a tap". If it's just a tap then the child will just fucking ignore it. :lol:

What a surprise, it's the same people in here supporting hitting kids who defended mutilating babies. The science on this issue REALLY is clear, but because it's against their barbaric beliefs they just ignore it.
#14891569
It is an obnoxious question, by definition, it suggest the 'possessive', in no way are our children chattels, or possessions.

Secondly, it suggest that there is an inherent 'right' to punish, there is not.

We have, as a society, moved on from such things, only regressive societies, constrained by illiberal culture's, entertain the Victorian notions of chastisement to ensure discipline on matters not amenable to reason.

As the saying goes, " Spare the rod, spoil the child".
#14891582
Pants-of-dog wrote:Logically, this would then mean that you support Cruz, the attacker, in the latest school shooting fiasco. He used violence to resolve his problems. That was, after all, the context in which we are discussing this. Obviously, you do not, but Cruz was punishing kids for breaking the rules by shooting them, which is what spanking teaches us: that acting violently towards children is a useful and rational way of dealing with kids who break the rules.

Also, your personal anecdote also supports the claim that this sort of violence makes people more likely to be violent, seeing as how you chose violence to resolve your conflicts, and one of the violent options you considered was shooting everyone.


How can something be logically the case when you didn't use logic to make the argument? :lol:

1. Does spanking teach that justifiable violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution? Yes. Agree with Gusto!

2. Is mass-murdering people the justifiable use of violence for conflict resolution? No. (Your comparison of the two is almost crossing the line btw).

3. Is kicking your bully's ass for fucking with you in school a justifiable use of violence for conflict resolution? YES. (which was my point, that you ignored because it destroys your poorly constructed strawman.)

You conflating spanking and mass shootings, is the fallacy of equivocation, you are equivocating on justifiable and unjustifiable violence and making them the same in order to advance an argument against a position that no one holds.

Image


Pants-of-dog wrote:Decky was discussing how this leads to school shootings, and you agreed, and then I agreed with you.

This is the context of our discussion.


No, that was mocking satire, which should be obvious.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, you are incorrect. Violence is decreasing.


Image

I said violence was increasing relative to when my father grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, not to whatever date you would so choose for yourself and then attribute to my argument.

Since 2005, when the assault ban expired, there have been 32 such mass public shootings, including seven in 2012, Duwe said. So that’s just over 20 percent of all mass public shootings....

Here’s a breakdown per decade of Duwe’s data. It is important to note that these are raw figures; the United States had far fewer people 50 or 100 years ago.

Mass Public Shootings per Decade

1900s : 0

1910s: 2

1920s: 2

1930s: 9

1940s: 8

1950s: 1

1960s: 6

1970s: 13

1980s: 32

1990s: 42

2000s: 28


2010s (three years): 14


http://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-histo ... n-the-u-s/

During an era in which spanking was ubiquitous, school shootings were basically non-existent in comparison to the latter half of the 20th century which saw school shootings becoming far more common. School shootings have declined since the 1990s, but that has nothing to do with either of us making correlations to child discipline.

And as my point stated earlier, if we were going to press that correlation, as you have tried to do, then it appears that child discipline has been worst in the decades where traditional child raising practices have been on the decrease, rather than the opposite. Twisting this data in relation to the 1990s in a dishonest deception.

Big shocker there.

Pants-of-dog wrote: I highly doubt they see defending the weak from bullies as “anti-social behaviour” even if it involves physical violence.


Also a strawman.

Where in my argument did I say defending the weak from bullies was my criteria?

Also, on what grounds can you argue that using physical violence to defend yourself against bullies is not classed as anti-social by school counselors (source?)? Because when I was in high school, fighting, regardless of who "started it," was considered to be anti-social behavior, the justification was irrelevant, both were marked in their permanent record and both were suspended. Period.

This is called zero-tolerance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, obviously VS does not actually support Cruz and his ilk, but people who support spanking support a disciplinary method that is associated with these kinds of anti-social and violent behaviours.

Also, the logic is clear: if you teach a kid that violence is a good and useful way to punish people or modify their behaviour, then it makes to sense that this same kid will choose violence when he is bullied at school, as a way of punishing and disciplining his tormentors.


Once again, I am fine with teaching children that justified violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution, your "clear logic" fails to distinguish between types of violence and is therefore not-so-clear, and not-so-logical.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The cited meta-analysis above cites studies that control for the following factors:

One of the first large prospective studies (1997, n = 807) controlled for initial levels of child antisocial behaviour and sex, family socioeconomic status and levels of emotional support and cognitive stimulation in the home.11 Even with these controls, physical punishment between the ages of six and nine years predicted higher levels of antisocial behaviour two years later. Subsequent prospective studies yielded similar results, whether they controlled for parental age, child age, race and family structure;12 poverty, child age, emotional support, cognitive stimulation, sex, race and the interactions among these variables;13 or other factors.14–17 These studies provide the strongest evidence available that physical punishment is a risk factor for child aggression and antisocial behaviour.


There is no mention of the parental environment as to whether authoritative or passive styles of parenting were used (as in the long-term studies I referenced).

Also, this data seems to confirm only that spanking makes already fucked-up kids, more fucked up. Good job, this works against your point. For it clearly states that the conclusion drawn ought to be:
that physical punishment is a risk factor for child aggression and antisocial behaviour


Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, ignoring the fact that this study focuses on non-compliant children who were referred by clinics and is therefore probably not a good guide for regular kids, Roberts does not even say what Turnbull claims he says:


On what grounds can you make this assertion and on what basis does a clinical referral disqualify a child from an experiment regarding discipline? Thats absurd.

You can't disregard research just because you don't like it. Quit shouting FAKE NEWS, your going to make the Alt. Right jealous.

Besides, discipline is a matter of dealing with non-compliance and the more non-compliant the children, assuming no serious metal retardation, the better subjects for such an experiment.

This should be fucking obvious.

I don't want to read a study where they spank and punished compliant children but omitted the ones that needed it! :lol:

After all, the test was to determine what was effective against non-compliance, which is the point of child discipline.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There is obviously a difference between “spanking was more effective than anything else” and “we found that barrier is just as good as spanking”.


That source was cited and used in the context of further research from his trial, and you know it. But once again, even assuming this was possibly correct, at best we have a draw in the short-term study ONLY, which is insufficient reason to dismiss the method as "abuse," for it would mean that such was actually just as effective.

You have also failed to address the rest of the research, especially the long-term studies on the matter, which are the most important for the context of our discussion.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The second source cited by Turnbull is also a book specifically for children with behavioural disorders. My children do not have behavioural disorders. It makes no sense to treat them as if they do.


Well you admitted a study for your argument that dealt with children already having clinically aggressive and anti-social behavior (a.k.a., they are fucked up)...

Does this mean your kids are fucked up? If not, then your study has less relevance to your children than the one I cited. :lol:

Besides, this is called applying selective evidence, and is unscientific.

Your study criticized spanking kids who were anti-social which stands at around only 1% of the U.S. population, and no one is denying that if you have kids that fucked up socio-paths, spanking might make it worse.

BUT, that is not the same as children who are non-compliant in general (which is what my study focused on overall), or have behavior problems (which stands between 11-20% of all American children.)

There is no current data that reveals the number of children who are antisocial, but previous research places the number between 4 and 6 million [2% or less of U.S. Population], and growing.


https://www.healthline.com/health/paren ... n-children

In the United States, 11% to 20% of children have a mental or behavioral disorder. However, only an estimated one in eight children receives treatment.


https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/child ... le/394363/

This means, that the source you attacked, was more relevant to American children than your source, as more children, by far, have behavioral disorders than anti-social disorders. Likewise, no one is denying that anti-social disorders are a problem. :D

Hence, from the research: Authoritative parents who use spanking, and use spanking in combination with other techniques, in comparison to methods completely excluding such, are the most effective parents yielding children who are the least likely to develop anti-social behavior and this method was tested in to children who are generally non-compliant (which is what calls for a spanking anyway), and for children with behavioral problems, which stands at between 1 and 10 and 1 and 5 children and growing.

Your data is erroneous, misleading, and cherry picked. I would say I was surprised, but then again, its you I'm talking to.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The best is his third source which oh so coincidentally finds that parents can be grouped into the exact same groups as those mentioned in the book he is promoting, and the most successful group is (surprise, surprise) the one that follows his book as closely as possible!

Buy your copy today! http://goodparent.org/love-them-lead-them/

I find that I trust the meta-analysis more than I trust the guy trying to sell me something.


This is the genetic fallacy (poisoning the well), you are disqualifying an argument under the presumption of ulterior motives, solely on the basis of citing his own prior research which he sells in the form of the book, which let me remind you, is common academic practice. This does not serve as a legitimate rebuttal and can be safely dismissed.

Image
#14896681
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How can something be logically the case when you didn't use logic to make the argument? :lol:

1. Does spanking teach that justifiable violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution? Yes. Agree with Gusto!

2. Is mass-murdering people the justifiable use of violence for conflict resolution? No. (Your comparison of the two is almost crossing the line btw).

3. Is kicking your bully's ass for fucking with you in school a justifiable use of violence for conflict resolution? YES. (which was my point, that you ignored because it destroys your poorly constructed strawman.)

You conflating spanking and mass shootings, is the fallacy of equivocation, you are equivocating on justifiable and unjustifiable violence and making them the same in order to advance an argument against a position that no one holds.

Image


Since I am not conflating spanking and school shootings nor arguing that all forms of violence are equally unjustifiable (see my response to AFAIK for clarification), I am going tp ignore this.

No, that was mocking satire, which should be obvious.


You do tend to make jokes instead of arguments.

Image

I said violence was increasing relative to when my father grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, not to whatever date you would so choose for yourself and then attribute to my argument.


That particular date was not clear in your anecdote.

Regardless, evidence shows that violence in schools has decreased over the last few decades, while you have no evidence for your claim that it has increased.

http://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-histo ... n-the-u-s/

During an era in which spanking was ubiquitous, school shootings were basically non-existent in comparison to the latter half of the 20th century which saw school shootings becoming far more common. School shootings have declined since the 1990s, but that has nothing to do with either of us making correlations to child discipline.

And as my point stated earlier, if we were going to press that correlation, as you have tried to do, then it appears that child discipline has been worst in the decades where traditional child raising practices have been on the decrease, rather than the opposite. Twisting this data in relation to the 1990s in a dishonest deception.

Big shocker there.


I am not sure what you are trying to argue here.

If you are saying that spanking cannot be the only factor, then please refer to where Godstud and I already discussed that.

If you are trying to support your claim that there is more school violence now, then please note that school shootings are not the only type of school violence.

Also a strawman.

Where in my argument did I say defending the weak from bullies was my criteria?

Also, on what grounds can you argue that using physical violence to defend yourself against bullies is not classed as anti-social by school counselors (source?)? Because when I was in high school, fighting, regardless of who "started it," was considered to be anti-social behavior, the justification was irrelevant, both were marked in their permanent record and both were suspended. Period.

This is called zero-tolerance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)


You claimed that “their study assumes that all violence is automatically wrong to draw its conclusion”.

I noted that the meta-analysis looks at anti-social behaviour, delinquency, and aggression.

If you think the meta-analysis sees all violence as bad, please quote the text that supports this claim.

Once again, I am fine with teaching children that justified violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution, your "clear logic" fails to distinguish between types of violence and is therefore not-so-clear, and not-so-logical.


I pointed out earlier that we all have different ideas about what violence is justified. Obviously, school shooters feel justified in their attacks. You should not assume that others share your personal beliefs as to what violence is justified.

There is no mention of the parental environment as to whether authoritative or passive styles of parenting were used (as in the long-term studies I referenced).

Also, this data seems to confirm only that spanking makes already fucked-up kids, more fucked up. Good job, this works against your point. For it clearly states that the conclusion drawn ought to be:


Yes, the meta-analysis does not use or care about the terms that Turnbull uses on his website and in his book. This is probably because Turnbull is just a random guy trying to sell a book and his terms are not that useful, important, or accepted by most child psychologists.

And the conclusion you quote directly supports my claim.

On what grounds can you make this assertion and on what basis does a clinical referral disqualify a child from an experiment regarding discipline? Thats absurd.

You can't disregard research just because you don't like it. Quit shouting FAKE NEWS, your going to make the Alt. Right jealous.

Besides, discipline is a matter of dealing with non-compliance and the more non-compliant the children, assuming no serious metal retardation, the better subjects for such an experiment.

This should be fucking obvious.

I don't want to read a study where they spank and punished compliant children but omitted the ones that needed it! :lol:

After all, the test was to determine what was effective against non-compliance, which is the point of child discipline.


Are you asking me on what grounds I can claim that Turnbull was wrong when he claimed that the study found that spanking was the best?

I quoted the actual results of the study that contradicts Turnbull’s claim.

And as for the reasons why children without serious discipline problems should be treated differently than kids with those problems, this is because kids without these problems will react differently to parental demands because they have more self discipline.

To assume otherwise would be like assuming that all people should be treated like criminals when discussing how to deal with recidivism.

That source was cited and used in the context of further research from his trial, and you know it. But once again, even assuming this was possibly correct, at best we have a draw in the short-term study ONLY, which is insufficient reason to dismiss the method as "abuse," for it would mean that such was actually just as effective.

You have also failed to address the rest of the research, especially the long-term studies on the matter, which are the most important for the context of our discussion.


I literally quoted the exact study to which Turnbull referred and found out that he incorrectly claimed that the study said something it did not.

Perhaps you shouldn’t uncritically copy and paste arguments by others.

Well you admitted a study for your argument that dealt with children already having clinically aggressive and anti-social behavior (a.k.a., they are fucked up)...

Does this mean your kids are fucked up? If not, then your study has less relevance to your children than the one I cited. :lol:

Besides, this is called applying selective evidence, and is unscientific.

Your study criticized spanking kids who were anti-social which stands at around only 1% of the U.S. population, and no one is denying that if you have kids that fucked up socio-paths, spanking might make it worse.

BUT, that is not the same as children who are non-compliant in general (which is what my study focused on overall), or have behavior problems (which stands between 11-20% of all American children.)


Actually, you’re the one who cited studies about difficult kids. Or more correctly, you copied and pasted Turnbull who cited them.

As for applying selected evidence, you literally grabbed the first link you could find that supported your claim and uncritically copied and pasted it, mistakes and all.

I looked at many studies and then cited a meta-analysis that looked at twenty years of studies.

Yes, I agree that Turnbull’s focus on kids with behaviour problems is unscientific.

https://www.healthline.com/health/paren ... n-children



https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/child ... le/394363/

This means, that the source you attacked, was more relevant to American children than your source, as more children, by far, have behavioral disorders than anti-social disorders. Likewise, no one is denying that anti-social disorders are a problem. :D

Hence, from the research: Authoritative parents who use spanking, and use spanking in combination with other techniques, in comparison to methods completely excluding such, are the most effective parents yielding children who are the least likely to develop anti-social behavior and this method was tested in to children who are generally non-compliant (which is what calls for a spanking anyway), and for children with behavioral problems, which stands at between 1 and 10 and 1 and 5 children and growing.

Your data is erroneous, misleading, and cherry picked. I would say I was surprised, but then again, its you I'm talking to.


Earlier, you argued that my source assumed all violence was antisocial behaviour. Now you are arguing that the study deals only with a very specific and clinical definition of antisocial behaviour.

Why are you arguing two different and contradictory things?

And you keep quoting Turnbull’s weird taxonomy of parents as if it used or even makes sense outside of Turnbull’s head.

This is the genetic fallacy (poisoning the well), you are disqualifying an argument under the presumption of ulterior motives, solely on the basis of citing his own prior research which he sells in the form of the book, which let me remind you, is common academic practice. This does not serve as a legitimate rebuttal and can be safely dismissed.

Image


No. I am correctly pointing out that Turnbull’s claims about parenting styles is not accepted by anyone other than himself, and that he cites the sudies that use his taxonomy because they support his business.

But, his weird taxonomy may be correct. Feel free to rpesent evidence that it is.
#14896925
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Every. Single. Parent. In my entire community spanks their children and have for like 300 years. this is just retarded.

My old man spanked my ass with a switch when I was 13 (the last time I got whooped) because my brother and I threw dirt clods into the cab of a skid-loader he borrowed from a neighbor.

No bruises or blood, only a temporary welt that was gone in like an hour. We both lived, not abuse, just parenting, and boy did I fucking deserve it. :lol:



I grew up without a father and I ran wild. I was arrested half a dozen times before I was 16 and looking back I wish I had someone to kick my ass and keep me in line. It would of saved me from a lot of trouble later on in life.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]