Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (1 Viewer)

[Darnie]

Groundbreaking New Zealand research has refuted thousands of international studies which claim that smacking children makes them more likely to become aggressive and antisocial.
Children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked, found the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study, which has tracked 1000 children since they were born in the city in 1972-73.
The finding, based on interviews in the past two years when the children were 32-year-olds, will be published this year.
An earlier part of the study published in the NZ Medical Journal in January, found that 80 per cent of the sample had been physically punished at home during childhood.
Twenty-nine per cent of the whole sample had only ever been smacked. A further 45 per cent had been hit with an object such as a strap or wooden spoon, and 6 per cent had suffered "extreme physical punishment" that left cuts, lasting bruises or welts or involved out-of-control hitting, choking, being thrown or sexually violated.




Numerous overseas studies have shown that children who are physically punished are more likely to be aggressive and antisocial, have poor parent-child relationships and develop mental illnesses.
But the lead author of the physical punishment part of the Dunedin study, psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand.
Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
"Study members in the 'smacking only' category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society," she said.
"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
"I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
"The more honest researchers have said, let's be honest, we all wish we could say it's all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child - although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself - but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together."
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the "slippery slope" theory - that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
"We couldn't find any," she said.
The findings undermine Green MP Sue Bradford's bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use "reasonable force" to discipline children.
Dr Millichamp said there was no doubt that abusive punishments had long-lasting negative consequences, but the research did not support banning mild smacks.
"It's unethical to make out that there is a lot of evidence that mild smacking is harmful," she said.
She and colleague Judy Martin have made a written submission to Parliament suggesting that section 59 should be retained but amended to allow smacking with an open hand, but not hitting with a closed fist or certain objects.

sauce

thoughts?

 

[Kwayera]

If the child consistently defies the parent and the riding crop is never used, the child will soon realize that the threat is empty and it will cease to become effective. Its a risky play, because once the child realises this they will loose respect for the parent and will be less scared by future threats.

I would say that your mother was not cunning at all, but rather quite lucky that you were probably a pretty well behaved child anyway.

You missed the point again. It was about progression. The crop was the "pinnacle of punishment", and because I respected the smack and avoided that, being hit with the crop was never in the equation. It was a threat my parents made because they knew if would never have to be used.

Abuse a child, slap them and strike them for anything and nothing at all, and eventually they lose respect for it. Consistent escalation smacking? Totally different thing.

 

[Kwayera]

NOTHING.
Consistent opposition to any form of violence with the exception of self-defense, is an absolutely sound ethical position.

And your explanation for why it isn't consistent makes NO sense.

BS. Would you resort to restrained violence to stop someone stealing your stuff? Yes. (That's not self-defence). You would kill a police officer for attempting to arrest you for a victimless crime - essentially for doing his job, even if you don't agree with it?

Your ethical position is as flimsy as you think ours is.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You missed the point again. It was about progression. The crop was the "pinnacle of punishment", and because I respected the smack and avoided that, being hit with the crop was never in the equation. It was a threat my parents made because they knew if would never have to be used.

Well then what was the whole point of the whole charade if they knew you would never do anything that would warrant the use of the riding crop anyway.

If as you say, the threat of a smack was enough to ensure your obedience, why would anyone but a sadistic parent psychologically fuck with their kid by threatening to beat them with a riding crop?

 

[Kwayera]

Well then what was the whole point of the whole charade if they knew you would never do anything that would warrant the use of the riding crop anyway.

If as you say, the threat of a smack was enough to ensure your obedience, why would anyone but a sadistic parent psychologically fuck with their kid by threatening to beat them with a riding crop?

Because kids are kids and still do stupid things regardless, like my sister beating me up or me dropping a drawer onto her toes.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

BS. Would you resort to restrained violence to stop someone stealing your stuff? Yes. (That's not self-defence). You would kill a police officer for attempting to arrest you for a victimless crime - essentially for doing his job, even if you don't agree with it?

A mafia henchman may simply be doing his job, but the moment he threatens your life and liberty you become entitled to defend your life and liberty. It is possible, although unlikely that the only way to defend yourself may be by killing the police officer.

The police officer has willingly signed up for this role knowing what it entails and is compensated for such risks. It would be regrettable because he probably means you no malice, but the same can be said of any agent who is "just doing their job" on behalf of someone else. At the end of the day you have a right to protect yourself.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Because kids are kids and still do stupid things regardless, like my sister beating me up or me dropping a drawer onto her toes.

That is not an answer to what I said. I know kids do stupid things. It doesn't explain what was the point of brandishing the riding crop?

 

[Kwayera]

A mafia henchman may simply be doing his job, but the moment he threatens your life and liberty you become entitled to defend your life and liberty. It is possible, although unlikely that the only way to defend yourself may be by killing the police officer.

The police officer has willingly signed up for this role knowing what it entails and is compensated for such risks. It would be regrettable because he probably means you no malice, but the same can be said of any agent who is "just doing their job" on behalf of someone else. At the end of the day you have a right to protect yourself.

Arresting you isn't attempting to kill you, yet you'd deprive that officer of his life. Some would call that excessive force?

And well, no, if you've committed a crime then by definition you're not entitled to liberty until proven innocent or punished? Isn't that how our justice system works?

 

[Kwayera]

That is not an answer to what I said. I know kids do stupid things. It doesn't explain what was the point of brandishing the riding crop?

Because.. it worked?

What about that are you not understanding?

 

[Amogh]

How ironic. Thats implying that bringing up a child on the basis of 'violence' is meant to refrain them from indulging in similar activities (only a bit more extreme).
eg. Beats child and tells them not to bully-hypocrisy.

then you say beating a child isn't violence...
why not?
Violence: An act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)
What difference does the age and the intentions make?

Wouldnt such callous activities leave the child psychologically traumatized?
Then again, it has been used before and there is living proof that everything turned out fine...

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Arresting you isn't attempting to kill you, yet you'd deprive that officer of his life. Some would call that excessive force?

No. You fail to understand what excessive force means. Excessive force means using more force than is necessary to prevent the attacker from harming you. It does not have to be perfectly in proportion to the harm that would eventuate if they did attack you.

Consider if someone other than the government was planning to kidnap you and lock you up for 20 years (which people do get sentenced to for drug trafficking). Would you not be entitled to kill them to avoid such a fate?

And well, no, if you've committed a crime then by definition you're not entitled to liberty until proven innocent or punished? Isn't that how our justice system works?

Well if the law is our source of moral authority, we can justify anything. "Damn those CRIMINAL Jews ILLEGALLY fleeing concentration camps."

What a joke.

I though it was pretty clear that my argument was based on natural rights to your body and your property. Clearly someone arresting you for possessing a particular plant or chemical is a gross invasion of these rights.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Because.. it worked?

What about that are you not understanding?

Well parenting without violence or threats of violence worked for my parents and many people I know.

Just because something works doesn't mean it is the best way to do something.

If we gave people the death penalty for drink driving, it would probably WORK and greatly reduce drink driving. It doesn't make it a good idea.

I think its pretty pathetic if the best idea your parents can come up with for disciplining a child is to make them believe they will be beaten with a riding crop.

 

[Kwayera]

No. You fail to understand what excessive force means. Excessive force means using more force than is necessary to prevent the attacker from harming you. It does not have to be perfectly in proportion to the harm that would eventuate if they did attack you.

Consider if someone other than the government was planning to kidnap you and lock you up for 20 years (which people do get sentenced to for drug trafficking). Would you not be entitled to kill them to avoid such a fate?

Of course not - 20 years in jail in no way justifies killing someone. One could argue that if you don't want to follow the laws of a country, either (lawfully) challenge them or leave the country.

Well if the law is our source of moral authority, we can justify anything. "Damn those CRIMINAL Jews ILLEGALLY fleeing concentration camps."

What a joke.

I though it was pretty clear that my argument was based on natural rights to your body and your property. Clearly someone arresting you for possessing a particular plant or chemical is a gross invasion of these rights.

Lol classy.

Well parenting without violence or threats of violence worked for my parents and many people I know.

Just because something works doesn't mean it is the best way to do something.

If we gave people the death penalty for drink driving, it would probably WORK and greatly reduce drink driving. It doesn't make it a good idea.

I think its pretty pathetic if the best idea your parents can come up with for disciplining a child is to make them believe they will be beaten with a riding crop.

Actually, the threat of the death penalty doesn't deter criminals. At all. Only have to look at the US, and the number of people who still traffic drugs into Indonesia, to prove that.

Clearly my parents' methods of discipline worked far more effectively than yours did if you consider killing a police officer a just "defence" for being arrested on a drug charge.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Of course not - 20 years in jail in no way justifies killing someone.

You conveniently dodged the question about a non-state kidnapper. Would you spend 20 years in prison like conditions to let a non-government henchman live?

One could argue that if you don't want to follow the laws of a country, either (lawfully) challenge them or leave the country.

Yeah and I could argue that if you don't like paying protection money to the Mafia, you should leave their neighborhood.

Lol classy.

The point still stands though.

Actually, the threat of the death penalty doesn't deter criminals. At all. Only have to look at the US, and the number of people who still traffic drugs into Indonesia, to prove that.

Wrong. The death penalty doesn't deter people compared to lengthy prison sentences. It certainly would deter people compared to the current penalties for drink driving such as fines and loss of license. So the analogy is still valid.

Clearly my parents' methods of discipline worked far more effectively than yours did if you consider killing a police officer a just "defence" for being arrested on a drug charge.

Well I never said it in such blanket terms. Only in certain circumstances (which may rarely if ever actually arise) where the choice is either do a long time in jail for a victimless crime or kill a police officer, would it be justified.

 

[Kwayera]

You conveniently dodged the question about a non-state kidnapper. Would you spend 20 years in prison like conditions to let a non-government henchman live?

What? (I wouldn't commit the crime in the first place?)

Yeah and I could argue that if you don't like paying protection money to the Mafia, you should leave their neighborhood.

Wise words.

Wrong. The death penalty doesn't deter people compared to lengthy prison sentences. It certainly would deter people compared to the current penalties for drink driving such as fines and loss of license. So the analogy is still valid.

Really? Prove it.

Well I never said it in such blanket terms. Only in certain circumstances (which may rarely if ever actually arise) where the choice is either do a long time in jail for a victimless crime or kill a police officer, would it be justified.

You think it's okay to kill a person rather than go to prison. I think your moral and/or ethical guidelines are fundamentally flawed.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

What? (I wouldn't commit the crime in the first place?)

Still dodging the question. It's a hypothetical. Suppose they want to lock you up for some arbitrary reason (i.e. because you like cookies). If the choice is either kill the henchmen or spend 20 years in confinement, what would you choose?

Although a better example would be rape.

Would you consider yourself justified in killing someone to prevent them from raping you?

I'd argue that rape and kidnapping someone and locking them up for an extended period (which often results in repeated rapes in prison) are both pretty horrific things that are close enough to murder to warrant you killing someone who is threatening you with such things. I realize your argument will be that its a choice to deal drugs, even though the law may be stupid. But its a choice for a woman to go out late at night by herself, or to go out drinking heavily. Even if her choices increase the danger that she will be attacked, she has every right to make those choices and at the end of the day the attacker is at fault. The same applies to drugs. I would agree that drug trafficking is a foolish choice. But the drug trafficker is not initiating force against anyone. It is the police officer who comes a long and threatens the life and liberty of the drug trafficker. Therefore the drug trafficker has a natural right to defend himself.

Really? Prove it.

I can't. Are you seriously saying that if penalties for drink driving were increased from fines to death sentences, it wouldn't be a significant deterrent?

You think it's okay to kill a person rather than go to prison. I think your moral and/or ethical guidelines are fundamentally flawed.

See above.

 

[will-anal]

Still dodging the question. It's a hypothetical. Suppose they want to lock you up for some arbitrary reason (i.e. because you like cookies). If the choice is either kill the henchmen or spend 20 years in confinement, what would you choose?

lol it's a fucking retarded hypothetical.

If she kills the henchman, not only is she facing 20 years in confinement for whatever else it was, she's spending another 20 for killing someone. Her answer of "not killing him" is entirely fucking valid given I don't see how "killing" the guy is going to bode well for you in the end.

Face the music and have some faith in the justice system :\


p.s. stop coming up with ridiculous scenarios that are not pertinent to the situation

 

[will-anal]

NOTHING.
Consistent opposition to any form of violence with the exception of self-defense, is an absolutely sound ethical position.

And your explanation for why it isn't consistent makes NO sense.

Consistent opposition, okay, yeah last time I checked, getting arrested and facing a possible jail sentence was not an immediate threat on your life and thus does not constitute as a valid reason for FUCKING KILLING SOMEONE.

And be fucked if I'll continue reading your shit because you clearly can't distinguish between DETERRING A CHILD FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT IS POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO THEM AND RANDOMLY ASSAULTING AN ADULT.

Fuck off retards.

 

[dieburndie]

Consistent opposition, okay, yeah last time I checked, getting arrested and facing a possible jail sentence was not an immediate threat on your life and thus does not constitute as a valid reason for FUCKING KILLING SOMEONE.

And be fucked if I'll continue reading your shit because you clearly can't distinguish between DETERRING A CHILD FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT IS POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO THEM AND RANDOMLY ASSAULTING AN ADULT.

Fuck off retards.

How to win an argument:
1. Focus on unrelated, extreme hypotheticals from other discussions.
2. Type in CAPS every so often for added credibility.
3. Call those who disagree with you retards, then end by telling them to fuck off as confirmation of how correct you are.

Did a bunch of fundies teach you how to debate?

 

[will-anal]

Yeah the aforementioned is a good summary of my debating techniques. Nothing to do with people who try and create links between things where links don't exist.

when it is possible, experiences involving nonabusive physical discipline and physical maltreatment should be differentiated and considered in conjunction in order to more fully understand potential mechanisms underlying the intergenerational transmission of physical punishment. If a child has experienced abuse (perpetrated by that parent or by someone else), then these processes may operate differently. There may be discontinuities between past experience with and subsequent attitudes about physical punishment for those who have
experienced physical maltreatmen

among a subgroup of young adults who reported that they had experienced discipline-related injuries in their past, there was no association between discipline experiences and acceptance of physical punishment as a method of discipline.

Those with probable abuse histories were not more condemning of the use of physical punishment if they had been spanked more frequently; rather, there was no relation

Our goal was to examine the etiology of individual differences in young adolescents’ emerging attitudes about parental use of corporal punishment. Using a prospective 8-year longitudinal design (5 to 13 years old), we considered the direct and moderating roles of the key constructs identified above, including experiences of physical punishment and possible physical maltreatment, as well as several sociodemographie factors. We sought to understand what it
is that accounts for individual differences in attitudes about spanking.

Three quarters of the adolescents (74%) had experienced
physical punishment, and one fifth (19%) had a history of suspected physical maltreatment prior to and including third grade.

According to past studies, by middle childhood children begin to form supportive attitudes about parental use of physical punishment

Which reaffirms the stance I have about not using physical punishment for children at school age.

links between experiences and attitudes may be conditioned upon one’s
interpretations of past discipline events, and these interpretations are likely to be influenced by a host of ecological and social–cognitive factors

Deater-Deckard et al,J Fam Psychol. 2003 September ; 17(3): 351–360

medical and secular literature, there is great diversity of opinion about the short-term and long-term effects of various disciplinary methods, especially the use of disciplinary spanking.

Early toddlers are very susceptible to fears of abandonment and should not be kept in time-out away from the parent. However, occasionally, a parent may become so frustrated with the child that he or she needs a period of
separation from the child. Early toddlers are not verbal enough to understand or mature enough to respond to verbal prohibitions. Therefore, verbal directions and explanations are unreliable forms of discipline for early toddlers

At three years to five years of age, most children are able to accept reality and limitations, act in ways to obtain others’ approval, and be self-reliant for their immediate needs. However, they have not internalized many rules, are
gullible, and their judgment is not always sound. They require good behavioural models after which to pattern their own behaviour. The consistency should apply not only in the rules and actions of the primary caregiver, but in other adults who care for the child.

Hence why I disagree with physical punishment or discipline being used with school children.

Physical harm to a child inflicted by a parent out of control and in a rage is completely inappropriate and dangerous.

Which is what none of us are disputing.

Effective discipline for children Paediatr Child Health. 2004 January; 9(1): 37–41.

more of the serious persisters experienced little physical punishment

low physical punishment (OR=0.48) and having experienced no perinatal problems (OR=0.53) was more common among moderately serious persisters as
compared to desisters in offending

But didn't you guys just tell us that smacking as a form of punishment will lead to a higher incidence of agressive tendencies later in life?

Childhood Predictors of Desistance and Level of Persistence in Offending in Early Onset Offenders, J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:967–980

With respect to authoritarian control, mean effect sizes were relatively small, such as the link between physical punishment and delinquency

The Relationship Between Parenting and Delinquency: A Meta-analysis, J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:749–775