Violence in Childrearing

[McCulloch]

Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
You shall strike him with the rod
And rescue his soul from Sheol.

Is there a place for physical violence as part of childrearing?

[methylatedghosts]

I also believe that physical discipline can be done through love and communication.

A whole book can be written on how to responsibly physically discipline a child. And many books have been written on this. But, let me say again that responsible physical discipline is not simply whipping your child black and blue because he spilled his milk.

Well, of course not. Thats a wee bit over-reactive...

I don't think anybody is saying that physical discipline is required for responsible parenting. But that physical discipline can be a part of responsible parenting. And that just because a parent uses physical discipline, it does not mean that is irresponsible parenting.

No, I don't think anyone is saying that either, but I'm kinda saying the exact opposite. That it is needed to NOT hit your kids.


At this point, I just want to mention that when I say "physical discipline", I mean hitting. Physically removing the child, (i.e. picking him up) or just grabbing him, is ok. Much can be said by grabbing the childs arm firmly (not tightly that it hurts) to get his attention. That would be as far as I'd go with physical discipline.

[Galphanore]

If I had authority over you, my striking you with a rod would still be violent.

I guess it all depends also on what we mean by "violent".

Let's put it another way. Are the Singaporean authorities doing something wrong when they cane people? I would say no.

Yes, they are wrong, but then I think a lot of the things that governments claim is nessesary is not.

However, if you caned me, it would be considered wrong.

Why make the distinction?

But, can you say that all the parents throughout history who have used a rod would be considered irresponsible for doing so?

No, because at the time we did not understand the effects that phisical violence can have on a developing mind. They were not irresponsible, just ignorant.

[otseng]

Let's put it another way. Are the Singaporean authorities doing something wrong when they cane people? I would say no.

Yes, they are wrong, but then I think a lot of the things that governments claim is nessesary is not.

I also believe that a lot of things that governments do are unnecessary, and some even wrong. But, I have my reasons to argue why they are wrong. So, in the case of Singaporean caning, why do you say it is wrong?

However, if you caned me, it would be considered wrong.

Why make the distinction?

Two things would make it wrong. First, McCulloch has no authority over me. Second, I did not break any rules or laws.

No, because at the time we did not understand the effects that phisical violence can have on a developing mind. They were not irresponsible, just ignorant.

Perhaps they were ignorant. Or perhaps they did understand the effects it would have.

[Galphanore]

Let's put it another way. Are the Singaporean authorities doing something wrong when they cane people? I would say no.

Yes, they are wrong, but then I think a lot of the things that governments claim is nessesary is not.

I also believe that a lot of things that governments do are unnecessary, and some even wrong. But, I have my reasons to argue why they are wrong. So, in the case of Singaporean caning, why do you say it is wrong?

Because I agree with the eight amendment to our constitution that cruel and unusual punishment is unnecessary and immoral.

However, if you caned me, it would be considered wrong.

Why make the distinction?

Two things would make it wrong. First, McCulloch has no authority over me. Second, I did not break any rules or laws.

Very well.

No, because at the time we did not understand the effects that phisical violence can have on a developing mind. They were not irresponsible, just ignorant.

Perhaps they were ignorant. Or perhaps they did understand the effects it would have.

.....are you actually presenting that as an argument? If so, please elaborate because I am not sure what you mean by that.

[achilles12604]

A thought. . .

Otseng pointed out that the position of "never physically punish your child" is fairly new. Certainly within the last couple generations. Only within the last couple decades have child abuse laws and the like been widely used. Someone else mentioned that therapists declare that physically punishing your child teaches them to be violent.

Ok then, if all the above is true, why are violent crimes going through the roof during the same timeframe as spankings were forced down? Shouldn't they be directly related rather than inversely related if spanking does indeed hurt the child mentally and physically?

[otseng]

Let's put it another way. Are the Singaporean authorities doing something wrong when they cane people? I would say no.

Yes, they are wrong, but then I think a lot of the things that governments claim is nessesary is not.

I also believe that a lot of things that governments do are unnecessary, and some even wrong. But, I have my reasons to argue why they are wrong. So, in the case of Singaporean caning, why do you say it is wrong?

Because I agree with the eight amendment to our constitution that cruel and unusual punishment is unnecessary and immoral.

The United States Constitution has no jurisdiction in Singapore. So, presenting the eighth amendment has no bearing on caning in Singapore.

No, because at the time we did not understand the effects that phisical violence can have on a developing mind. They were not irresponsible, just ignorant.

Perhaps they were ignorant. Or perhaps they did understand the effects it would have.

.....are you actually presenting that as an argument? If so, please elaborate because I am not sure what you mean by that.

This generation seems to always assume that previous generations weren't so smart about matters. I don't tend to believe that. It's not that they were necessarily always right, but I don't think they were so ignorant as people would like to believe.

Also, nowadays, we are so sensitive to pain that we assume everyone else is the same way. Whenever we have a sensation in our head, we grab for our Aspirin, Tylenol, Excedrin, Advil, Aleve, Motrin, etc. How many women now have a childbirth without an epidural? And because we cannot take any sort of pain, does that mean that everyone else is so sensitive to pain too?

In addition, nowadays, people are so lawsuit crazy that I think that's another reason spanking is frowned upon.

Also, nobody has yet presented any evidence that spanking leads to "psychological problems". And if that was true, I'd say the majority of people throughout history had psychological problems then.

I think people did understand the effects of a rod applied to the rear. That it instilled negative consequences to bad behavior. Even while growing up in elementary school, I know most of my classmates thought twice of doing something wrong because of the principal's paddle.

[Galphanore]

Let's put it another way. Are the Singaporean authorities doing something wrong when they cane people? I would say no.

Yes, they are wrong, but then I think a lot of the things that governments claim is nessesary is not.

I also believe that a lot of things that governments do are unnecessary, and some even wrong. But, I have my reasons to argue why they are wrong. So, in the case of Singaporean caning, why do you say it is wrong?

Because I agree with the eight amendment to our constitution that cruel and unusual punishment is unnecessary and immoral.

The United States Constitution has no jurisdiction in Singapore. So, presenting the eighth amendment has no bearing on caning in Singapore.

You misunderstand me. I know it's legal to cane someone in Singapore. I just agree with the meaning behind the eighth amendment in that cruel and unusual punishment is unnecessary and immoral.

No, because at the time we did not understand the effects that phisical violence can have on a developing mind. They were not irresponsible, just ignorant.

Perhaps they were ignorant. Or perhaps they did understand the effects it would have.

.....are you actually presenting that as an argument? If so, please elaborate because I am not sure what you mean by that.

This generation seems to always assume that previous generations weren't so smart about matters. I don't tend to believe that. It's not that they were necessarily always right, but I don't think they were so ignorant as people would like to believe.

Also, nowadays, we are so sensitive to pain that we assume everyone else is the same way. Whenever we have a sensation in our head, we grab for our Aspirin, Tylenol, Excedrin, Advil, Aleve, Motrin, etc. How many women now have a childbirth without an epidural?

And how many died without it and the other medical advances since then? You are implying that they had access to the knowledge to be able to do these things but chose not to, that's just not the case. They really were ignorant of what we know now.

And because we cannot take any sort of pain, does that mean that everyone else is so sensitive to pain too?

Of course not. Does not being sensitive to pain yourself mean that it's right to assume that a child won't be? Or that it's not going to have any negative side effects?

In addition, nowadays, people are so lawsuit crazy that I think that's another reason spanking is frowned upon.

No, spanking is frowned upon because it's unnecessary and can lead to mental issues later in life. Our society being lawsuit crazy is a side effect of our societies general tendency to assume that nothing we do is our own fault. People using being spanked at an early age to justify their actions later is a side effect of that same mentality, but does not preclude it from being true. Children who are spanked become aggressive long before they learn to blame their parents for their actions.

Also, nobody has yet presented any evidence that spanking leads to "psychological problems". And if that was true, I'd say the majority of people throughout history had psychological problems then.

By todays standards, yes, they did. They would be considered overly aggressive in most 'civilized' locations in the world.Spanking leads to anxious and aggressive children.

I think people did understand the effects of a rod applied to the rear. That it instilled negative consequences to bad behavior. Even while growing up in elementary school, I know most of my classmates thought twice of doing something wrong because of the principal's paddle.

Yes, they understood that it stopped people from getting caught doing something they were told not to. They did not, however, understand the side effects of physical violence on children. Spanking, like all negative reinforcement, teaches people how to avoid being caught and how to ask for forgiveness, not to do the right thing from the beginning.

[Goat]

A thought. . .

Otseng pointed out that the position of "never physically punish your child" is fairly new. Certainly within the last couple generations. Only within the last couple decades have child abuse laws and the like been widely used. Someone else mentioned that therapists declare that physically punishing your child teaches them to be violent.

Ok then, if all the above is true, why are violent crimes going through the roof during the same timeframe as spankings were forced down? Shouldn't they be directly related rather than inversely related if spanking does indeed hurt the child mentally and physically?

If you look, in the last 15 years, the percentage of violent crimes have gone down.

This is a web site in the bureause of Justice that shows the violent crime rates.
So, you assumption that violent crime has increased is faulty. I do not know
if there is a link between attiutudes about spanking and this trend. However,
according to government statistics, it has gone down in a very strong trend.

From http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

And two charts from there

[achilles12604]

A thought. . .

Otseng pointed out that the position of "never physically punish your child" is fairly new. Certainly within the last couple generations. Only within the last couple decades have child abuse laws and the like been widely used. Someone else mentioned that therapists declare that physically punishing your child teaches them to be violent.

Ok then, if all the above is true, why are violent crimes going through the roof during the same timeframe as spankings were forced down? Shouldn't they be directly related rather than inversely related if spanking does indeed hurt the child mentally and physically?

If you look, in the last 15 years, the percentage of violent crimes have gone down.

This is a web site in the bureause of Justice that shows the violent crime rates.
So, you assumption that violent crime has increased is faulty. I do not know
if there is a link between attiutudes about spanking and this trend. However,
according to government statistics, it has gone down in a very strong trend.

From http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

And two charts from there

My mistake. Thanks for providing good info with source material to further increase my knowledge.

[Goat]

My mistake. Thanks for providing good info with source material to further increase my knowledge.

No problem. Your belief was a very common one. I believe that part of the perception is that not only is communications very more prevalent these days, but since there are so many more people than there were 30 years ago, there are more incidences, even though the 'incidences per 1000' have gone down.

When it comes to such items as looking for crime stats, health statistics, and things like that, the various government web sites (bureau of statistics, and Justice), are really good resources. Sometimes you can get surprising results if you analyse trends on a state by state basis, or a city by city basis.