Spanking appears efficient to many. Do something dangerous, irritating or aggravating and there is a quick response that will almost always result in the other desisting from continuing with that behavior. For the 'victim' it is quick - tied immediately to the preceding action and once over one can return to normal relationships. That is the principle - often not adhered to, there can be the 'wait till your father gets home' or infliction of real tissue damage, or sadistic mistreatment all of which get grouped in with 'smacking'.
Studies are all very well, but there can be no randomised controlled trials, so they compare apples and oranges - family types with family types making assumptions of an ability to control for unknown variables with very incomplete data. So hardly surprising when many are unconvinced of the data with regard to smoking and health problems that these poor quality studies do not convince.
In real life people get frustrated with each other especially those close to them. Not all have the intellect to stand back and consider the most effective strategy in any situation and some children are downright violent (psychopaths and variants there of are not just created by smacking) - yet the parents are left to fend for themselves with very little support and criticism from authority and their peers for failing to domesticate their children.
I think the point made by Beatsong is central - you can inflict considerable damage with inappropriate psychological punishment - the issue is providing effective tools for every situation parents are likely to face so as to minimise all mistreatment.

Darth - It's perfectly normal to quote only the section of a post that one is querying, rather than the whole post, and the remainder didn't "explain" anything about the part that I queried. The fact that you have an unsupported and subjective preference for non-corporal over corporal judicial punishments doesn't provide objective evidence for your unsupported and subjective perference for non-corproal over corporal domestic punishments.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I think the emotional distress caused by a time out is far less than the pain and the emotional distress caused by a spanking.

We need to make sure we are distinguishing between the two factors of severity and type. You've deliberately chosen "time out" as an example of a very mild non-physical punishment. What about deliberately taking away what the child loves, permanently? What about deliberately suspending parental approval and affection until the child is wailing with grief, fear and remorse? What about humiliating the child in front of others?

Do you have any basis for your claim that the distress caused by even a mild physical punishment must, per se, be greater than that caused by a non-physical punishment of similar severity? Or is it just "I think..."

Indeed, it might be self-contradictory to make such a case, since we judge the severity of a punishment precisely by the amount of distress that it causes. Punishment works (to the extent that it works at all) by causing distress; there's not really any getting round that.

You might be making an argument that it's best to punish children as little as possible, and to make the punishments as mild as possible, while bringing them up to become good, responsible individuals using other, more positive means. I'd probably agree with that, but I don't see how simply distinguishing between whether a punishment attacks the buttocks or the mind addresses that.

I also think parents with a faulty idea of the process are perfectly capable of fucking up their kids good and proper without ever laying a finger on them.

Pebble wrote:In real life people get frustrated with each other especially those close to them. Not all have the intellect to stand back and consider the most effective strategy in any situation and some children are downright violent (psychopaths and variants there of are not just created by smacking) - yet the parents are left to fend for themselves with very little support and criticism from authority and their peers for failing to domesticate their children.
I think the point made by Beatsong is central - you can inflict considerable damage with inappropriate psychological punishment - the issue is providing effective tools for every situation parents are likely to face so as to minimise all mistreatment.

Indeed. I'll just add at this point that we've never laid a finger on either of our kids (at my wife's insistence, not mine) and they're both fantastic, socially considerate people with a solid sense of right and wrong. But then, other than a few brief episodes before they were about seven, we've hardly had to do much else in the way of punishment either. I'm all for educating people as well as possible in what factors of child rearing contribute to the best results, but these have to start with some very global ones that determine the extent to which the child feels safe and comfortable and wants to conform with their home environment - or unsafe and wanting to rebel - in the first place.

I just think that a lot of the woolly and unsupported thinking around this issue basically comes down to "ooh... smacking - that's what those awful sweaty working class people do; not what we enlightened types do when we have the intellect and education to work out how to inflict far more subtle kinds of suffering".

You seem to think I am making an argument I am not making. I agree that some emotional distress is far worse than a spanking. I also agree that any negative reinforcement misused either physically or emotionally can lead to screwing up a kid.

Spanking your child, causing them emotional distress and physical pain is worse than using a similar amount of solely emotional distress. I don't support physical beatings with adults who break the law and I don't support it with children who push or break the line.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Spanking your child, causing them emotional distress and physical pain is worse than using a similar amount of solely emotional distress.

OK.

I don't suppose there's any point in my asking "why" again...

Beatsong wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Spanking your child, causing them emotional distress and physical pain is worse than using a similar amount of solely emotional distress.

OK.

I don't suppose there's any point in my asking "why" again...

Probably not, but it would be nice to see some credible evidence. For example one could postulate that if a 'punitive' approach is used to establish control, the amount of damage inflicted needs to be equivalent to produce a similar response - with or without resorting to physical contact, it would be very interesting to see if anyone has been able to construct a study to evaluate this particular premise.

Beatsong wrote:What's the difference between deserving being beaten as punishment and deserving any other kind of punishment?

Proportianal response.
Accepting the idea of punishment for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean one can just apply whatever form of punishment one likes, there's such a thing as proportional response.
With the exception of spanking/hitting themselves, I fail to see how spanking is a proportionate punishment for any 'offensive' behaviour.

Beatsong wrote: Surely if one regards the whole concept of punishment as valid at all (even if only as a regrettable, but inevitable last recourse), then one defines certain actions as "deserving" of that punishment. And then when a child knowingly commits those actions despite knowing the consequences, they deserve the consequences.

Can you give an example of an action that warrants physical pain as punishment?

I think we should merge the Jamie Oliver thread with this one.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Causing physical harm to a child as punishment is different from using a time out as punishment. Beating a child with a hose pipe is different from removing a favorite toy for a set period as punishment. Not all punishments are the same.

Beating with a hose pipe? FFS what a comparison. Another typical tactic in discussion Darth? The overstatement?

Call in the police.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Beatsong wrote:What's the difference between deserving being beaten as punishment and deserving any other kind of punishment?

Proportianal response.
Accepting the idea of punishment for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean one can just apply whatever form of punishment one likes, there's such a thing as proportional response.

But again, as others have, you are equating "physical punishment" with "severe punishment" and "non-physical punishment" with "mild punishment".

This is a completely invalid equivalence. Physical punishment can be extremely mild indeed, consisting of nothing more than a light slap over clothing, invoking more of a sense of surprise and just coming back to self control than pain as such. And non-physical punishment can, when severe and capricious enough and tied up with sufficient levels of fucked up parental emotional bullshit, scar people for life.

The idea that whether a punishment is physical or not determines its "proportionality" is simply invalid.

Beatsong wrote: Surely if one regards the whole concept of punishment as valid at all (even if only as a regrettable, but inevitable last recourse), then one defines certain actions as "deserving" of that punishment. And then when a child knowingly commits those actions despite knowing the consequences, they deserve the consequences.

Can you give an example of an action that warrants physical pain as punishment?

Any action that warrants psychological or emotional pain as punishment. Neither you nor anyone else here has shown why one type (as opposed to amount) of pain is justifiable, but the other type isn't.

Beatsong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Beatsong wrote:What's the difference between deserving being beaten as punishment and deserving any other kind of punishment?

Proportianal response.
Accepting the idea of punishment for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean one can just apply whatever form of punishment one likes, there's such a thing as proportional response.

But again, as others have, you are equating "physical punishment" with "severe punishment" and "non-physical punishment" with "mild punishment".

No, I'm asking in which case physical punishment can be considered a proportional response.

Beatsong wrote:This is a completely invalid equivalence.

How fortunate then that I did not make it.

Beatsong wrote: Physical punishment can be extremely mild indeed, consisting of nothing more than a light slap over clothing, invoking more of a sense of surprise and just coming back to self control than pain as such. And non-physical punishment can, when severe and capricious enough and tied up with sufficient levels of fucked up parental emotional bullshit, scar people for life.

The idea that whether a punishment is physical or not determines its "proportionality" is simply invalid.

This is simply a blind assertion.
When one party hasn't any physical force or otherwise inflicted physical pain, why would the other party be justified in doing that?

Beatsong wrote: Surely if one regards the whole concept of punishment as valid at all (even if only as a regrettable, but inevitable last recourse), then one defines certain actions as "deserving" of that punishment. And then when a child knowingly commits those actions despite knowing the consequences, they deserve the consequences.

Can you give an example of an action that warrants physical pain as punishment?

Any action that warrants psychological or emotional pain as punishment.[/quote]
Could you give a more vague answer?

Beatsong wrote: Neither you nor anyone else here has shown why one type (as opposed to amount) of pain is justifiable, but the other type isn't.

That's because I have not talked about different kinds of pain. This is an interjection into the discussion of your own making.
I'm simply asking what actions can rationally deserve the infliction of physical pain.

I'm simply asking what actions can rationally deserve the infliction of physical pain.

The problem is that I don't know which of the following you mean:

a) ...the infliction of physical pain, as opposed to other kinds of pain which would be perfectly OK. Or -

b) ...the infliction of any kind of pain.

You are objecting to the fact of physical punishment - the implication being that there is something about the fact that it is physical that is objectionable, which isn't objectionable in non-physical punishment.

I could answer this by saying "anything that can be described as deserving the infliction of any other kind of pain, can equally be described as deserving the infliction of physical pain - since there's no evidence that physical pain is, per se, any worse or more harmful than other kinds of pain". But to go any further than that, we need to know whether you think that there is indeed anything that deserves the infliction of other kinds of pain.

I tried to clarify this in my first post on the thread: Are you saying that all punishment is bad? Or are you saying that punishment is sometimes justifiable, but only when it is non-physical?

If you'd like to answer this to clarify your position, then I can address your questions more fully.

i'd like to beat ten bells of shit out of the cunts who thought it such a good idea when i was a nipper. does good? all the good it did me was to make me hate the fuckers and resent the hell out of grown ups. all beating teaches anyone is that violence is a valid solution to miscreant behaviour.

Pebble wrote:
I think the point made by Beatsong is central - you can inflict considerable damage with inappropriate psychological punishment - the issue is providing effective tools for every situation parents are likely to face so as to minimise all mistreatment.

I agree with the point summarised by Pebble.
There is always the question of being proportional and avoiding cruelty. Cruelty can be physical or mental.

However, kids emulate adults. Though we do not wish to encourage any kind of cruelty, in adult life we can say that violence is almost always a bad response to situations. Negotiation, agreeing deals, agreeing consequences for deal breakers, are good things for kids/people to learn. So to teach children that if they behave in this way they will see certain benefits, in another way pre agreed, proportional, withdrawal of privileges will result, we are teaching them negotiation and social skills. To teach, by demonstration, that violence solves problems and is an aid in getting others to do your bidding is not a good example to set.

I'm making the assumption we agree that kids learn by emulating adults. As far as I am aware this is the case.

Well, we haven't seen one of these topics in a while.

I find that I still hold true that if a parent has to resort to violence to elicit desired behavior from their spawn, they aren't particularly good at that job.

It isn't acceptable to do to adults, I am always puzzled how it becomes acceptable to do it to children.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I seriously do not get why people not only believe premise 2, but accept this argument as a whole.
Even after you cite study after study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness and harmfullness of corporal punishment, they will cling to this appeal to personal anecdote.
I get it might be because they can't admit to themselves their parents did something wrong and hurthful, but still it's so baffling to me.

I've given up trying to argue with people, because people believe what they are going to believe pretty much no matter what. These people were exposed to beatings, and it had an effect on them, and one of the effects is that they grow up to believe that it's the right thing to do.

That is, the damage it does to people turns them into the kind of people who think it's fine.

For more details on the Cognitive Science behind how this works, see http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html Lakoff has also done some books and videos, but this is pretty short and touches on the major processes.

The_Metatron wrote:Well, we haven't seen one of these topics in a while.

I find that I still hold true that if a parent has to resort to violence to elicit desired behavior from their spawn, they aren't particularly good at that job.

It isn't acceptable to do to adults, I am always puzzled how it becomes acceptable to do it to children.

That's all that needs to be said about hitting people to get them to do what you want. If you can't figure out a better way then don't be a parent... please.

epepke wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I seriously do not get why people not only believe premise 2, but accept this argument as a whole.
Even after you cite study after study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness and harmfullness of corporal punishment, they will cling to this appeal to personal anecdote.
I get it might be because they can't admit to themselves their parents did something wrong and hurthful, but still it's so baffling to me.

I've given up trying to argue with people, because people believe what they are going to believe pretty much no matter what. These people were exposed to beatings, and it had an effect on them, and one of the effects is that they grow up to believe that it's the right thing to do.

That is, the damage it does to people turns them into the kind of people who think it's fine.

That's a completely circular argument.

Onyx8 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Well, we haven't seen one of these topics in a while.

I find that I still hold true that if a parent has to resort to violence to elicit desired behavior from their spawn, they aren't particularly good at that job.

It isn't acceptable to do to adults, I am always puzzled how it becomes acceptable to do it to children.

That's all that needs to be said about hitting people to get them to do what you want. If you can't figure out a better way then don't be a parent... please.

Agreed.
Even if the physical act doesn't actually hurt the child, it sends a message that use of violence is an acceptable thing to do. Which gets all the more frustrating when the child uses violence on other kids (even as self defence), only to get told it is wrong along with more violence as a punishment.

And people wonder why some kids become fucked up as adults.