I hate the line "well I was smacked and I turned out OK" It always makes me think "No you didn't, you think hitting kids is acceptable. That's not someone who is entirely OK"
I hate the line "well I was smacked and I turned out OK"
It always makes me think "No you didn't, you think hitting kids is acceptable. That's not someone who is entirely OK"
I believe a good smack can be extremely educational, the problem is regulating what constitutes a good smack and how to differentiate it from abuse. So prohibiting it altogether might as well be...
I believe a good smack can be extremely educational, the problem is regulating what constitutes a good smack and how to differentiate it from abuse. So prohibiting it altogether might as well be the best option.
Sure. You just need to have a moral framework that differentiates objective standards of morality from subjective preferences. If you believe things like “treating people with respect is better...
Sure. You just need to have a moral framework that differentiates objective standards of morality room from subjective preferences. If you believe things like “treating people with respect is better than being disrespectful” are qualitatively different kinds of statements than what flavor of ice-cream you prefer you should already be comfortable drawing such distinctions.
At the most obvious level, I’m a kickboxer so punching people in the face is literally how you teach people to keep their guard up. At the end of the day 90% of it is muscle memory, and regular positive/negative reinforcement inculcates that on a level that trying to rationally explain that someone should maintain their guard does not. Moral frameworks aren’t that different and while we rationalize most of them after the fact, our in-the-moment actions are dictated more by habit than anything else.
And a big part of learning how to train as a martial artist is learning how to control your application of force to whatever is appropriate for the circumstance. Light sparring means you strike to let people know they’ve been struck but to not hurt them long term. But sometimes you do hard sparring because being able to persist in spite of pain and keep your composure under the pressure of someone striking to hurt you is part of what you’re training for.
You’re introducing news concepts of power disparity and a consent framework now, but the original claim was that violence can’t be used to teach a lesson without also teaching that it’s an...
You’re introducing news concepts of power disparity and a consent framework now, but the original claim was that violence can’t be used to teach a lesson without also teaching that it’s an appropriate response to any behavior you dislike. I’ll set aside the fact that both claims are wrong and the BDSM analogy is kind of tortured because even if they were right, they wouldn’t make sense in this context at all.
The fact is, violence is done, kids learn a lesson from it, and because of the context under which it is being done (an explanation goes with the strike from an instructor with authority) there is no inculcation that’s might-makes-right. So the claim that you can’t have one without the other doesn’t hold up.
It doesn’t hold up because it depends on making an inappropriate conflation of moral claims with personal preferences. There is nothing to indicate that kids aren’t capable of drawing this distinction themselves when they’re being reprimanded, I certainly understood it when it happened to me.
Now that I'm on the computer: your objection can pose no threat to my position because, if I'm here defending corporal punishments, I'm obviously very comfortable with other people holding the...
Do you believe that there is any way of using violence to correct the behaviour of children that does not teach the lesson that violence is an acceptable way to "correct" behaviour that you don't like?
Now that I'm on the computer:
your objection can pose no threat to my position because, if I'm here defending corporal punishments, I'm obviously very comfortable with other people holding the same belief. Including my own children.
There are many, many other ways of ensuring that a toddler will stay in line, one of the most successful being informing the toddler that if they do not stop the behavior, they will be going home...
I refused to listen to repeated pleas from my mother to stop. She took my into the bathroom spanked me, and I was immediately in line.
There are many, many other ways of ensuring that a toddler will stay in line, one of the most successful being informing the toddler that if they do not stop the behavior, they will be going home for time out, then following through on that.
Yes, it's often inconvenient, but there is always a viable alternative to violence.
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. Having a child is constantly inconvenient. That's part of the consequences of deciding to have children. When you choose to use violence against a child, you...
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. Having a child is constantly inconvenient. That's part of the consequences of deciding to have children.
When you choose to use violence against a child, you teach only that violence is the answer to inconvenient solutions.
You are allowed to immediately restrain a child. That is not abusive. You are allowed to sit a child down, tell them they are not allowed to move. If they do, they will be picked up and put back in the place where they're supposed to be sitting, this time for longer. This is the consequence of their behavior.
This is an immediate consequence: boredom and isolation from stimulus.
Spanking in a bathroom tells them that might makes right, and that they should act out of fear of violent retribution, not out of a desire to avoid consequences of their own actions.
Ah yes, the prison system version of punishment. That has worked extremely well and ensured that rules are never broken... No, it teaches them escalation of consequences: verbal reprimand, loss of...
This is an immediate consequence: boredom and isolation from stimulus.
Ah yes, the prison system version of punishment. That has worked extremely well and ensured that rules are never broken...
Spanking in a bathroom tells them that might makes right, and that they should act out of fear of violent retribution, not out of a desire to avoid consequences of their own actions.
No, it teaches them escalation of consequences: verbal reprimand, loss of privilege, loss of stimulus/freedom, pain. Pain should never be the first option, in fact it should always be the last option, but it should be an option and it is a very good teacher.
I could bring lots of anecdotes, but I think it would be as useful as trying to convince a staunch Vegan that sometimes killing animals for meat is OK. So I'll just re-estate my prior position,...
I could bring lots of anecdotes, but I think it would be as useful as trying to convince a staunch Vegan that sometimes killing animals for meat is OK. So I'll just re-estate my prior position, which I think is a strong one: in the end, my opinion on "smacking" doesn't matter. It should be prohibited anyway:
the problem is regulating what constitutes a good smack and how to differentiate it from abuse. So prohibiting it altogether might as well be the best option.
I mean the plural of anecdote is not data, and all data suggests that it's universally a bad idea. If you want to discuss psychology papers or other scientific literature, I'd be more than happy...
I could bring lots of anecdotes, but I think it would be as useful as trying to convince a staunch Vegan that sometimes killing animals for meat is OK.
I mean the plural of anecdote is not data, and all data suggests that it's universally a bad idea.
If you want to discuss psychology papers or other scientific literature, I'd be more than happy to engage that discussion.
I don’t see the point in discussing scientific papers because my position is largely irrelevant: smacking should be prohibited wether it’s harmful or not. To make it clear: that’s because it would...
I don’t see the point in discussing scientific papers because my position is largely irrelevant: smacking should be prohibited wether it’s harmful or not.
To make it clear: that’s because it would be unpractical or impossible to prevent abuse without also preventing what I might consider legitimate corporal punishment.
I think I do agree with you. My parents only gave spankings in place of physical danger. Running out in the street, climbing up on the roof, throwing a kitchen knife, were all things that were...
I think I do agree with you. My parents only gave spankings in place of physical danger. Running out in the street, climbing up on the roof, throwing a kitchen knife, were all things that were punished physically as a surrogate for the physical consequences without the danger of serious harm. Yelling, tantrums, etc were never punished that way.
That said, I don’t think I’d spank my kids, but I’m not a parent yet so I think I’ll step back from making any hard declarations.
I hate the line "well I was smacked and I turned out OK"
It always makes me think "No you didn't, you think hitting kids is acceptable. That's not someone who is entirely OK"
You know this is just a tautology right?
I believe a good smack can be extremely educational, the problem is regulating what constitutes a good smack and how to differentiate it from abuse. So prohibiting it altogether might as well be the best option.
Sure. You just need to have a moral framework that differentiates objective standards of morality
roomfrom subjective preferences. If you believe things like “treating people with respect is better than being disrespectful” are qualitatively different kinds of statements than what flavor of ice-cream you prefer you should already be comfortable drawing such distinctions.At the most obvious level, I’m a kickboxer so punching people in the face is literally how you teach people to keep their guard up. At the end of the day 90% of it is muscle memory, and regular positive/negative reinforcement inculcates that on a level that trying to rationally explain that someone should maintain their guard does not. Moral frameworks aren’t that different and while we rationalize most of them after the fact, our in-the-moment actions are dictated more by habit than anything else.
And a big part of learning how to train as a martial artist is learning how to control your application of force to whatever is appropriate for the circumstance. Light sparring means you strike to let people know they’ve been struck but to not hurt them long term. But sometimes you do hard sparring because being able to persist in spite of pain and keep your composure under the pressure of someone striking to hurt you is part of what you’re training for.
You’re introducing news concepts of power disparity and a consent framework now, but the original claim was that violence can’t be used to teach a lesson without also teaching that it’s an appropriate response to any behavior you dislike. I’ll set aside the fact that both claims are wrong and the BDSM analogy is kind of tortured because even if they were right, they wouldn’t make sense in this context at all.
The fact is, violence is done, kids learn a lesson from it, and because of the context under which it is being done (an explanation goes with the strike from an instructor with authority) there is no inculcation that’s might-makes-right. So the claim that you can’t have one without the other doesn’t hold up.
It doesn’t hold up because it depends on making an inappropriate conflation of moral claims with personal preferences. There is nothing to indicate that kids aren’t capable of drawing this distinction themselves when they’re being reprimanded, I certainly understood it when it happened to me.
You’re implying that I disagree with the last premise. I do not.
Your interpretation is correct.
Now that I'm on the computer:
your objection can pose no threat to my position because, if I'm here defending corporal punishments, I'm obviously very comfortable with other people holding the same belief. Including my own children.
IDK what you were expecting, TBH!
In what instances?
There are many, many other ways of ensuring that a toddler will stay in line, one of the most successful being informing the toddler that if they do not stop the behavior, they will be going home for time out, then following through on that.
Yes, it's often inconvenient, but there is always a viable alternative to violence.
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. Having a child is constantly inconvenient. That's part of the consequences of deciding to have children.
When you choose to use violence against a child, you teach only that violence is the answer to inconvenient solutions.
You are allowed to immediately restrain a child. That is not abusive. You are allowed to sit a child down, tell them they are not allowed to move. If they do, they will be picked up and put back in the place where they're supposed to be sitting, this time for longer. This is the consequence of their behavior.
This is an immediate consequence: boredom and isolation from stimulus.
Spanking in a bathroom tells them that might makes right, and that they should act out of fear of violent retribution, not out of a desire to avoid consequences of their own actions.
Ah yes, the prison system version of punishment. That has worked extremely well and ensured that rules are never broken...
No, it teaches them escalation of consequences: verbal reprimand, loss of privilege, loss of stimulus/freedom, pain. Pain should never be the first option, in fact it should always be the last option, but it should be an option and it is a very good teacher.
I could bring lots of anecdotes, but I think it would be as useful as trying to convince a staunch Vegan that sometimes killing animals for meat is OK. So I'll just re-estate my prior position, which I think is a strong one: in the end, my opinion on "smacking" doesn't matter. It should be prohibited anyway:
I mean the plural of anecdote is not data, and all data suggests that it's universally a bad idea.
If you want to discuss psychology papers or other scientific literature, I'd be more than happy to engage that discussion.
I don’t see the point in discussing scientific papers because my position is largely irrelevant: smacking should be prohibited wether it’s harmful or not.
To make it clear: that’s because it would be unpractical or impossible to prevent abuse without also preventing what I might consider legitimate corporal punishment.
I think I do agree with you. My parents only gave spankings in place of physical danger. Running out in the street, climbing up on the roof, throwing a kitchen knife, were all things that were punished physically as a surrogate for the physical consequences without the danger of serious harm. Yelling, tantrums, etc were never punished that way.
That said, I don’t think I’d spank my kids, but I’m not a parent yet so I think I’ll step back from making any hard declarations.
As an addendum: "loving smack" sounds unsettling romantic to me. Or something out of 50 Shades of Grey.